\

VIEWS

OF

, THE CHURCH OF ST. MARY

AT STAFFORD.

BY

THE LATE JOHN MASFEN, JUN.

WITH

in irronnt of it0 1Rr0torlltion,

AND MA T ER I A L S FOR ITS HIS TOR Y.

LONDON: PUBLISHED BY JOHN HENRY PARKER, 377, STRAND.

MDCCCLII. PRINTED BY DAY AND SON, LITHOGRAPHERS TO THE QUEEN,

17, GATE STREET, LlNCOLN'S-INN-FIELDS, LONDON. TO

J E S SEW A T T S R U S S ELL, ESQ.

THE MUNIFICENT ORIGINATOR

OF

THE RESTORATION OF THE CHURCH OF ST. MARY A '1' STAFFORD,

AND TO

THE NOBILITY, CLERGY, GENTRY,

AND OTHER CONTRIBUTORS,

W I-I 0 S 0 C I-I E E R :F U L L Y RES P 0 N D E D T 0 I-I I seA L L,

~gi£i 3l1rmorinl

OF THE COMPLETE SUCCESS OF THEIR PIOUS UNDERTAKING

lIs respectfttl1!1 ]Bcllicateb',

IN THE NAME OF THE LATE JOHN MASFEN, JUN.

BY HIS MOTHER.

B .f P R E F ACE.

As the circumstances under which this volume is presented to the public are only known to the friends of its deceased author, it may be well, as an apology for its many defects, which will be but too apparent, to state what those circumstances are.

The late John Masfen, jun., a self-taught and juvenile artist, conceived the idea that he would, with the proceeds of his pencil, assist in decorating the mother church of his native town, by appropriating them to the purchase of a painted window, and to that end had commenced a series of Architectural Sketches illustrative of its beauties.

Before his work was complete, death put an end to his pleasing' task; but it being well known to his family for what purpose the Sketches had been taken, they were placed in the hands of Mr. Day, and with his kind assistance, and the proffered and valuable aid of Mr. Scott, the Architect, it is hoped that an acceptable memento of the great achievement effected by the restoration of St. Mary's Church to its original magnificence, will be offered to the patrons of

Church Architecture.

During the progress of the work, many additions have been made to the original plan, as set forth in the prospectus, causing an increased expense, which will leave little or no surplus to carry out the wish and intention already expressed, unless by an increased sale.

Under these circumstances, the fulfilment of the author's object must, it is feared, mainly depend on the kind interest which the subscribers and his friends may take in promoting its more extended circulation.

The frontispiece represents a design intended to be placed in the single lancet window at the west end of the nave, should a fund sufficient for the purpose be realized.

Stafford, May, 1852. HISTORICAL NOTICE S

OF

ST. MARY'S CHURCH, ST AFFORD:

COLLECTED BY

GEORGE BELLASIS MASFEN, AND HORACE MASFEN WRIGHT, ESQS.

ARCHITECTURE, the comparison of its various styles, and the investigation of its progress and improve- ment, has in all ages been a subject of great interest and importance. The stern grandeur of the pyramids, the unapproached refinement of Grecian art, and the luxurious but less chaste magnificence of the Roman, all bear faithful record of the characters of the nations that gave them birth, and of their respective progress in civilization. The same truth IS strikingly illustrated by an examination into the different styles of church archi- tecture. The cathedrals of the Church of Rome, decorated in the most gorgeous manner with carving, bassi-relievi and marble pillars, accord well with the pomp and splendour of her ritual; while, on the other hand, the rude simplicity of the buildings for public worship erected by the Puritans of the time of Cromwell were in keeping, both in their external appearance, and in the want of internal decoration, with the stern and relentless character of their authors. Among English parish churches, we conceive it would be difficult to find one more fitting and appropriate for the worship of Almighty God than that of St. Mary at Stafford. The majestic beauty of form, the striking absence of constructional blemish, the harmonious combination of different periods, and the hoary aspect of antiquity, bearing .witness to the centuries during which it has fulfilled the sacred purpose of its erection, entitle this church to a pre-eminent rank among the ecclesiastical structures of our country. Diligent search has been made for historical records of St. Mary's Church, but it is to be regretted that no account of its foundation could be discovered, the documents which would have supplied the deficiency having, there is reason to believe, been destroyed at the time of the Reformation.* In the legend of St. Bettelinet allusion is made to Stafford; and its site is there described, as it seems,

* The records of the Augmentation Office supply us with evidence of the existence of St. Mary's in the time of King John. They say,-" The College or Church Collegiate of Stafford was founded by King John, within the Church of St. Mary-at-Stafford, which is the Old or Mother Church of the whole town of Stafford." t The legend connecting St. Betteline with the town of Stafford has been reproduced in modern times from ancient sources by an anonymous hand, and is as follows:- " Where the town now stands, the river Sow formed in those times an island, which was called Bethney. Here St. Bettelin " stationed himself for some years, and led a life so holy, that the place, which profited by his miraculous gifts in his lifetime, grew into " a town under his patronage after his death. " A wild yet not u~pleasing fable is left us as a record of the saint's history in this retreat. He had concealed his name when he " took possession of the island; and on his father's death, who was king of those parts, the usurper of St. Bettelin's throne determined, "without knowing who he was, and from in-bred hatred as it appears of religion, to eject him from his island hermitage. The saint, c 8 HISTORICAL NOTICE OF at a time when it was encompassed by the waters of the River Sow. But we cannot place much confidence in this account, when we remember that Alban Butler regards that portion of the legend that relates to Stafford as little deserving of credit. According to Ingulfus, abbot of Croyland, the Saint Bertelline is said to have lived and died there. The writer of the "Lives of the English Saints" says, "A life of him " (St. Bettelline) has come down to us, which i~ attributed to Alexander, a prior of Canons Regular of " St. Augustine, in the beginning of the thirteenth century: but although this prior is well spoken of, little " credit can be placed in the letter of its statements." To this Prior Alexander, St. Bettelline appears to be indebted for his regal extraction. Felix, who was contemporary with St. Guthlake,* speaking of St. Bettelline previous to the commencement of his eremitical life, calls him merely "a certain clerk;" and though Felix adds, that to him the task of shaving St. Guthlake was confided, this fact alone would scarcely authorize our belief in St. Bettelin's high birth. We take our leave of this legend in the words of an authority: "Various writers speak of Bettelin, " Beccelin, Barthelin, or Bertelin; but whether he owned all these names at once, or whether but some of " them-whether a portion of his history belongs to another person, or whether it is altogether fabulous-is " not known." A miracle, consisting in the restoration of sight to a blind man, is also said by an anonymous writer, in an account appended to the history of St. Betteline by Prior Alexander, to have been performed, A.D. 1386, in the Church of St. Betteline in Stafford" We do not again find mention of this church till the sixteenth century, when this memorandum appears

III the Corporation Books: "32 HenY' 8, Mr. Bailiff Horne and Wm. Peyke accted. for St. Bartram's Church,

" 8th of Octr." Dugdale, treating of Stafford, says in his "Baronage," vo!. i. p. 161: "There was a Guild of " St. Bertelline,t with a church, wherein I find some buried, wh is the present school, corruptly called " St. Bartlemew's." Further particulars of this building are given during the reign of James 1., when George Craddock and William Brett, respondents in a suit in Chancery, say-" that tho' the King did give Sd burgesses for maintenance " of ye school lands tent" and heredts, yet he did not give them any school house, meaning that ye burgesses " shd provide a house out of Sd lands, &c., and being provided shd keep it in repair out of ye same. And they " have heard that ye burgesses having an old stone building with 3 ailes, they pulled down one aile to " repair the other two, and thereof made a school-house, wherein the scholars are yet instructed, and furnished "ye same with things necessary for a school-house, at ye cost of a great sum of money. That such a house " cannot be erected and furnished in these days for 500 merks."

" in Plot's words, 'disturbed by some that envied his happiness,. removed into some desert mountainous places, where he ended his life, " , leaving Bethnei to others, who afterwards built it, and called it Stafford, there being a shallow place in the river hereabout, that " 'could easily be passed with the help of a staff only.' 'Now whereabout,' Plot continues, 'this desert place should be, that " , St. Betteline went to, though histories are silent, yet I have some grounds to think that it might be about Throwley, Ilam, and " 'Dovedale; and that this was the St. Bertram who has a well, an ash, and a tomb at Ilam.':t " Yet, after all, some facts are needed to account for the honour in which St..- Bettelin was held at Stafford. Those facts, however, " are not found in history. We know little or nothing more, than that he was the patron of the town, where a church was built under " his invocation."-Lives qf the English Saints, 1845. * A.D. 714. This year St. Guthlac died.-Sax. Chron. t Extract from Corporation Books :-" 21 Hen. 8, Wydder and Craddock Barthelemew's Warden's made account upon " Childermas day for St. Barthelemew's Guild." ------::: If this suggestion of Dr. Plot be true, it is a coincidence not unworthy of note, that the proposal for the restoration of a church so intimately connected with that built in honour of St. Bertelline, should have come from the place which is said to have afforded him shelter a thousand years ago. ST. MARY'S CHURCH, STAFFORD. 9

This building was pulled down in the year 1800; but as no representation of it is known to be in existence, and no authentic description of it can be obtained, we are unable to decide upon the probable date of its erection. It abutted on the south-west corner of St. Mary's, with which it must at one time have communicated by means of a semicircular arch, of comparatively rude construction, but which appears to have been long closed up. We now emerge from the tantalizing obscurity of tradition, and pass into the steady light of contemporary history. In the Saxon Chronicle occurs the first known mention of Stafford, A.D. 913: "This year by the "help of God Ethelfleda Lady of Mercia went with all the Mercians to Tamworth, and there built the " fortress * early in the summer; and after this before Lammas that at Stafford."t Some have spoken as though Ethelfleda built the town of Stafford; but there is no authority for such a statement. The Saxon Chronicle, always careful and exact, specifies whether a town was built,t rebuilt,§ repaired,11 built and fortified,~ encompassed by a stone wall,** or, lastly, strengthened, by the erection of a fort.tt Add to these considerations the object of the fortification, which was the coercion of the Danes and British by means of strong places, filled with soldiers, who, on alarm of invasion, without waiting for either king or earl of the county, marched with the men of the neighbourhood to oppose the intruders-and we shall see, not only that these soldiers were merely auxiliaries, but also why the forts occupied by them were, for the most part, bililt in already existing towns. Occasionally, when two fortified towns were at such a distance from each other as to leave a tract of country undefended, an intermediate stronghold was erected; but in this case we find a record of the immediate foundation of a town on the spot. We may then presume, since the Saxon Chronicle attributed to Ethelfleda no more than the building of the fort, that she did not build the town; and since the building of the town of Stafford is nowhere recorded, that its origin is anterior to the construction of the fort. We may be certain that the noble Ethelfleda, the Great Alfred's worthy daughter, who was as pious as she was warlike, did not neglect the spiritual welfare of her armed men in Stafford; but as no mention is made in Saxon record of church building here, then or at any subsequent time, we must infer that the town already possessed a church or churches. These, doubtless very rude and fragile, probably shared the fate of others in Mercia, when afterwards it was overrun by the Danes under Anlaf; what they spared being most likely destroyed in the wars between Edmund Ironside and Canute. At what time Mercia was partitioned into counties is unknown; but whenever this took place, Stafford must have been an important town, since it gave name to the surrounding country; but we do not meet with an Earl of Staffordshire until the reign of Edward the Confessor. The flouri::;hing condition of Stafford under this King is attested by a penny bearing his effigy and name, with this inscription on the reverse- GODWINNE ON ST.Domesday Book-our authority for the state of England at this time-occurs the first known intimation of the existence of a Collegiate Church in Stafford-it is as follows: tom. i. folio 247 b.

" In Stafford civitate habet Rex xiii. canonicos prrebendarios et ten. iii. hid de Rege in elemosina," &c.

• bUJlh. t StreF FOfl't>a. :t Ex. Wigmore, A.D. 921. § Ex. Colchester, A.D. 921. 11 Ex. Chester, A.D. 907. , Ex. Maldon, A.D. 920. ** Ex. Towcester, A.D. 921. tt Stafford and Tamworth, A.D. 913. 10 HISTORICAL NOTICE OF

No notice was taken by the inquisition of any other than crown property; therefore, when we find it stated .elsewhere that in Stafford the King had a certain number of decayed houses, we must not suppose that the City of Stafford, the seat of a royal mint, contained no more. On the contrary, there is every reason for believing that Stafford had now become an eminently prosperous place, and its principal church, St. Mary's, being collegiate, was exempt from the ecclesiastical superintendence of the bishops of the diocese.* Tanner, in his" N otitia Monastica," speaking of Stafford, says, " The Church here is mentioned as given " to the Bishop and Chapter of Lichfield and Coventry, by King Stephen, anno 1 or 2, t in the same manner " as those of Wolverhampton and Penkridge, being all very ancient free chapels royal, and small colleges. " This was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the patronage of it was granted, 24 Hen. VI., to Humphry, " Duke of Buckingham, who proposed to be a benefactor to the sum of 100 marks. It was an exempt "jurisdiction, and consisted, 26 Hen. VIII., of a dean and 13 prebendaries,! when the deanery was "valued at 35l. 13s. 10d.; but all the prebendaries at not above 38l. per annum. It was granted to " Henry, Lord Stafford, 4 Edw. VI.; and to the Burgesses of Stafford, 14 Eliz.§ Laurence de Allisthorp " occurs dean, 20 Rich. n.: he was succeeded by John Siggeston." The grant of the Churches of Stafford and Penkridge, by King Stephen, is suggested by Tanner, in his "Notitia Monastica," to have been probably intended only to subject these churches to the jurisdiction of the Bishops of Lichfield and Coventry; and it is worthy of remark that, in accordance with the religion of the king and the customs of the times, the grant is made for the benefit of the soul of the king's uncle. The grant is to be found in the records of the British Museum, and is as follows:-

[Ex. Vet. Cod. MS. zn Bibl. Cotton. Chron. Lichfeldense nuncupato.] fot. 243 a.

NUM. XL.

CARTA REGIS STEPHANI, DE ECCLESIIS DE PENCRIZ ET STAFFORD." Step. rex Angl. archiepiscopis, episcopis, abbatibus, comitibus, baronibus, vicecomitibus et fidelibus suis, Francis et Anglis salutem. Sciatis me dedisse et concessise Rogero episcopo Cestrensi, et ecclesim sanctm Marim de Coventril1, et ecclesim sancti Ceddm de Lichfield, ecclesias de Pencriz et de Stafford, quas J ordanus clericus Rogeri de Fischer tenuit de me in capite. Ita quod idem J ordanus eas teneat de episcopo et

* In a manuscript volume, written by the late Rev. Joseph Ellerton, vicar of Baswich, which is now the property of Mr. Turnock, to whom we are indebted for a sight of it, is the subjoined memorandum,-"Mr. John Dearle, of Macclesfield, who was appointed head " master of Stafford School on the 19th of November, 1709, says, that within the memory of man there was this inscription in one of " the windows in the chancel-' Hac est regia capella ab omni ecclesiastica jurisdictione libera.' " t Because William, archbishop of Canterbury, is one of the witnesses, who died A.D. 1136 (see post, p. 11). :t: Reg. in Offic. Primit. Thirteen is the number of canons mentioned in Domesday. § Tanner's" Notitia Monastica." Rupert. Orig. MS. Mus. Brit. tom. v. fo1. 131, b. vi. fo1. 14. By letters patent, dated the 14th day of December, in the 14th year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, her Majesty was graciously pleased to constitute the parish of the High Church in Stafford, or the Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to be a rectory, and endowed it with certain moneys due to the church, but which had been irregularly paid or withheld, and this was done for the reason following- " Whereas we are now informed by our said burgesses of the town of Stafford, that for want of due payment of the aforesaid several " sums, and especially because the said several sums of 16l. and 8l., before specified to be separately paid for the stipend or salary of " a rector, or presbyter and curate, or minister in the aforesaid church, have not been sufficient on that account for their maintenance, " stipend, or salary, by reason of which Divine Service has not been performed, nor the inhabitants of the said town instructed for a long " time in religious matters. . . . . We therefore, as duly considering the premises, and desirous that one rector and person capable " of administering Divine Service in the aforesaid Church of Stafford should continue for all time to come; and that a man learned in " the sacred writings and doctrines, for the instruction and admonition of the inhabitants of. the town aforesaid, and of the people that " may resort to the said church, for ever," &c. &c. &c. " By these presents grant" certain moneys to the Rectory by this patent created. 11 Saxon Chronicle, Ingram's Edition, 1823, p. 130. ST. MARY'S CHURCH, STAFFORD. 11 prredictis ecclesiis libere et quiete in vita sua, sicut carta ejusdem episcopi testatur, quam inde habet de donatione, et post mortem ejus ecclesire illre remaneant episcopo et prredictis ecclesiis in sempiternum; cum terris et capellis, et decimis et omnibus rebus eis pertinentibus, pro anima regis Henrici avunculi mei. Et volo et firmiter prrecipio quod episcopus Rogerus et ecclesire sure eas teneant cum socca et sacca, et toll et team et infangenethene, et omnibus aliis consuetudinibus, sicut aliquis prredecessorum suorum eas un quam melius et liberius tenuit. Teste Will. archiepiscopo Cantuariensi, et H episcopo Wintoniensi, et R de Fischer, et Willielmo Marcer apud Westmonasterium. In Dugdale's Monasticon are the following very curious grants of the church by King Henry VI. to the Duke of Buckingham. Ecclesia Collegiata beatce Marice apud Stafford, in agro Staffordiensi.

NUM. I. Carta Regis Henrici Sexti, qua Patronatum Decanatus ejusdem Humfrido Duci Buckinghamire concessit. (Pat. 24 Hen. VI. Part 1. m. 9.). Rex omnibus ad quos, &c. salutem. Sciatis, quod de gratia nostra speciali, et absque aliquo feodo nobis solvendo dedimus et concessimus charissimo consanguineo nostro Humfrido duci Buckinghamire patronatum, advocationem et collation em decanatus liberre capellre nostrre de Stafford Coventr. et Lich. dimc., habendum et tenendum prrefatum patronatum, advocationem, et collation em decanatus prredicti, prrefato duci et hreredibus de corpore suo legitime procreatis: et si contingat ipsum ducem sine hrerede de corpore suo legi- time procreato obire : tunc patronatus, advocatio, et collatio decanatus prredicti rectis hreredibus ipsius ducis remaneant imperpetuum, &c. T. rege apud Westm. xvio Martii.

NUM. n. Licentia regia dicto Duci concessa super Donatione certarum Terrarum prrefatre Ecclesire. (IBID. ) Rex omnibus ad quos, &c. salutem. Sciatis, quod de gratia nostra speciali concessimus et licentiam dedimus, pro nobis et hreredibus nostris, quantum in nobis est, charissimo consanguineo nostro Humphrido duci Buckinghamire, quod ipse ac hreredes, feoffati et assignati sui, absque aliquo feodo sell fine ad opus nostrum vel hreredum nostrorum: solvendo ' centum marcas terrarum, tenementorum et redituum cum pertinentiis qure de nobis in capite, vel de aliis qualitercunque tenentur, dare possit et possint dilectis nobis in Christo decano et capitulo liberre capellre prredicti ducis de Stafford Coventr. et Lichf. dimc. cujus quidem capellre decanatus patronatum, donationem et collation em idem dux nuper habuit ex dono et concessione nostris, habendum et tenendum prredictas centum marcatas terrarum, tenementorum et redituum cum pertinentiis prrefato decano et successoribus suis, pro sustentatione certorum ministrorum in capella prredicta, divina in eadem, pro salubri statu nostro, et charissimre consortis nostrre Margaretre reginre Anglire, ac prredicti ducis et Annre uxoris sure, dum vixerimus; et pro animabus nostris cum ab hac luce migraverimus; necnon pro animabus omnium illorum pro quibus idem dux orari voluerit et disposuerit, et pro animalus omnium fidelium defunctorum celebraturorum: necnon ad quredam alia pietatis opera ibidem facienda et perimplenda juxta ordinationem ipsius ducis, hreredum, feoffatum, vel assignatorllm suorum in hac parte faciendam imperpetuum, &c. '*' T. rege apud Westm. XVIP' .die Martii. It appears by the following extracts from Dr. Plot's History, amongst other matters of interest, that

*' Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum. Vol. viii. p. 1439, ed. 1830. D 12 HISTORICAL NOTICE OF

the church steeple was remarkable both for the destruction which befell it from the violence of a tempest, and for having served as a mark for a princely marksman. " The spire of St. Mary's, Stafford, (says Dr. Plot,) was thought to be one of the highest in England; "which being blown down at twice, (part, I suppose, at one time, and part at another,) A.D. 1593, beat "down the church likewise on every side; which, yet, was repaired again at great charge, A.D. 1594, as " appears by the date en graven in a stone, on the N.W. side of the battlements of the steeple, just under " the spout." The catastrophe here mentioned took place in the month of March, 1593-4, when a tremendous storm of wind swept over England, marking its course by ruin and desolation. In the edition of Stowe's "Chronicle," published by E. Howes, 1611, b. 1, p. 390, there occurs the following account of the destruction it caused in Staffordshire, &c. " In the moneth of March, 1594, were many good stormes of win de, which overturned trees, steeples, " barnes, &c.; namely, in Worcestershire, in Beaudley Forrest, many oakes were overthrown. In Horton " Wood, of the said shire, more than one thousand five hundred oakes were overthrowne in one day, namely, " on the Thursday next before Palme Sunday. " In Staffordshire, the shaft of the steeple in Stafford town was rent in pieces along through the midst, " and throwne upon the church, wherewith the said roofe is broken; 1000 pound will not make it good. " Houses and barnes were overthrowne in most places of those shires. In Cank Wood, more than 3000 trees "were overthrowne; many steeples, more or lesse. About 50 in Staffordshire were perished or "blowne downe." A memorandum book, called "The Stafford Register," kept in the church, contains this record of the calamitous event :- " Die Jovis, viz., 21 March, 1593-4, altum campanale pyramidele, in villa Stafford, vento tempestuoso " eversum fuit: cujus occasu magna pars Ecclesim Beatm Marim persterinbatur; qure oppidanorum impensis "restaurata fuit; Item, magna pars cancellre diruebatur, qum solis impensis J ohannis Palmer, Rectoris " ejusdem ecclesire de integro, redificatus fuit." There was formerly prevalent in Stafford a singular mode of collecting money for the repair of the church, but whether it originated upon this occasion we are unable to determine. A manuscript note by Sir Simon Degge, in his copy of Plot's History, referring to the celebrated Hobby-horse Dance at Abbot's Bromley, says :-" This custome was continued till the warre, (i.e. the civil war,) and I have seen it " oft practised. They had something of this kind likewise, for getting money to repaire their church, at " Stafford; every Comon Councell collecting the free gifts of his friends ; and he that could bring in the most "money to the Hobby-horse, was looked upon as a man in best credit; so i they strove who should improve "his interest most; and, as I remember, it was accounted for at Christmas." Plot has a curious anecdote connected with this church, which is not unworthy of transcription :-" It " may be look't upon (he remarks) as an art not altogether forraigne tofire, that Prince Rupert showed at Stafford, " in the time ofthe Civil Warr, temp. Car. 1., where, standing in Captain Richard Sneyd's garden, at the high " house there, at about 60 yards' distance, he made a shot at the weather-cock upon the steeple of the Col- " legiate Church of St. Mary, with a screw'd horseman's pistol, and single bullet, which pierced its taile, the " hole plainly appearing to all that were below; which the king, then present, judging as a casualty only, "the Prince presently proved the contrary, by a second shot to the same effect; the two holes through " the weather-cock's taile (as an ample testimony of the thing) remaining there to this day." In another place the Doctor observes-" That sometimes men are produced of unusual stature, as well " in excess as defect, I received a certain proof from Mr. William Feak, alderman of Stafford, who gave me ST. MARY'S CHURCH, STAFFORD. 13

" the jaw-bone of a man or woman, with a tooth yet remaining in it, near double the magnitude of those " which men ordinarily have; which was found in the south chancel of the Collegiate Church of St. Mary, in " Stafford, where now lyes the grave-stone of Ann, the wife of Humphry Perry; which is enough to shew " that mankind is no more abated in stature than it is in age; the world still affording us a Goliah now and " then, as well as of old." It may not be uninteresting to add the following curious extract from the Parish Register of St. Mary's, dated August, 1575:- " Md.-That the vmth daie of August, 1575, our Sovreigne ladie Queene Elizabeth came from Chartley, " in p gress to Stafforde Castelle and was Received upon the poole dam wthout the East yates by the Bailiffs " and burgesses wth an oracon made by Mr. Lambe, the schoole maister, in the name of the Towne, and the

" Bayliffs delivred to he matie a goodie large standing cup of sylver c. gilt, of xxx lb. price, weh her highnes " cheerefullie and thankefullie Received, and so shee passed through the Eastyate streete, the markett place, " and the Crobury lane, and the broade eye, and there our the Rive to Stafford parke, in the seventeenth yeare " of her maties most p3perous raigne."

" Matrimonia solemniz: fiat inter Jacobu Hickes unciu die due Regine et Elizabetha Alabie. Vid: 1XO " die mensis J s diet." " Hickes an (usher?) of our said Lady the Queen and Elizabeth Alabie, widow, on the 9th day of the " month aforesaid." We are indebted to the manuscript book, by the Rev. Joseph Ellerton, previously referred to, for the subjoined extracts from Corporation and other documents:-

9th of Edward 4th. This year did William Marc William Dentych and John Cradock give two tenements in the Eastgate street to the Master of the Hospital of St. John beyond the bridge, to and for certain charitable uses as for obsequies and almes in the Collegial Church of St. Mary.

Extract from the Will of Robert Lees, Ironmonger, of Stafford, dated 38th of Henry VIII. I bequeath my soul to Almighty God, to our Lady St. Mary, and to all the holy company of heaven, and my body to be buried betwixt the sepulture of my wife, and the wall of the south side of the Collegiate Church of our Blessed Lady in Stafford. Item: I will that six pounds of wax be made into tapers to burn at my burial. Item: I will that yearly for ever, there be four obits said in the Collegial Church of our Blessed Lady in the town of Stafford aforesaid, by one of the priests there, quarterly, and he to have for his office and labour five pence, and the bellman to have a penny. And the residue of all and singular the said issues, rents, and profits to be employed, bestowed, and disposed to the behoof, use, and maintenance of the Free School in Stafford, or otherwise in deeds of pity for the health of my soul, by the discretion of my said Executors.

Extract from Mr. Sutton's Will, dated" Nov. 20th_30 th of the reign of our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth."

Robert Sutton, Clerk, Parson of St. Mary's in Stafford, after demising certain lands and sums of money, left the overplus to be disposed of by his Executors, "upon such good and godly uses as they in " conscience shall think necessary, but specially, from time to time, towards keeping the church in reparation, " and the furtherance of the school." 14 ST. MARY'S CHURCH, STAFFORD.

1639. Churchwarden's Accounts. "Received of Mr. Bayley £40." This is the first entry in the Churchwarden's accounts of money received from the Rector. " Paid Mr. Weate his stipend for the whole year, £8." This is the first notice of payment to a clergyman under the grant of Queen Elizabeth. 1641. From the Corporation Books. "The Mayor received of several inhabitants of this town, since the King went home, towards charges "and money laid out when his Majesty was at Stafford, £10 10s. 8d." " Paid Elizth Jones, for rushes to straw in his Majesty's way to the church."

30th of May, 1678. " A desire that Mr. Sampson Birch do give an account unto Mr. Mayor of what monies he has received, "that are given unto this Borough, for and towards the repairs of the Church of St. Mary, and by " whom it was given, and how he has bestowed and disbursed the same. That the thanks of the town may be " given the gentlemen that gave the same by Mr. Mayor and some of the Corporation, when they shall next "see them, so that the town may not be censured ungrateful."

22nd of May, 1684. "Ordered that the Chamberlain pay unto William Peyton what monies are due unto him for looking "unto the clock and chimes, there being £4 due unto him at Michaelmas last * * * and do for the "future pay him 40s. a-year so long as he takes care of the clock and chimes."

17th of Decbr• 1686. " By Mayor and major part of the capital burgesses, ordered a levy of £150 upon the whole parish of St. " Mary for repairing the parish church." 21st of December, 1696. "That the Churchwardens erect two new lofts, to be divided into several seats, the one betwixt the two "pillars next to the south door, and the two pillars next to the north-west door, to be built up to the walls, " and dispose of the same with consent of the minister to such as have no seats already."

10th of Novbr• 1698. " Contract for new clock and chimes* for 30l. confirmed."

8th of February, 1705. " The Mayor and Corporation being informed that several persons of this borough want seats in the " church, ordered, that Francis Perry do build a gallery at the north. wall to the front seats; and that he have "liberty, with consent of Mr. Mayor, to dispose of the same to the inhabitants, but not foreigners."

'" The chimes have lately undergone complete re-arrangement, the whole cost of which (about IDOl.) has been defrayed by William Salt, Esq., of Russell-square, London. SOME ACCOUNT

OF THE

RESTORATION OF ST. MARY'S CHURCH,

STAFFORD,

BY GEORGE GILBERT SCOT~ ES~

THE circumstances which led to the undertaking of this important and interesting work are in some degree curious, and may be worth mentioning, as an encouragement to those who, though desirous of embarking in similar works, may be deterred by the apparent hopelessness of the task. During the latter part of the year 1840, I received a letter from a friend, who took a deep interest in Church Architecture, and who was at that time resident in Staffordshire, mentioning that he had heard that a strong wish was entertained by the Rev. W. E. Coldwell, the Rector of Stafford, that his church should undergo a restoration, should it be possible to procure the requisite means, and recommending me to offer to make a survey, and such drawings as might be necessary to illustrate it, with a view of forming a groundwork to go upon in commencing an application for subscriptions. I followed my friend's suggestion with much pleasure, and my offer being very favourably received, I shortly afterwards made an examination of the church. The appearance which it at that time presented was truly melancholy, and such as it is happily now nearly impossible fully to recal to the memory. The exterior was dilapidated and decayed: in one part overhanging and threatening to fall, or supported in a temporary manner by friendly but uncouth buttresses; in another, disfigured by reckless injuries or incongruous additions; some windows blocked up, others filled in with rude tracery not their own; and nearly every part showing the unsparing hand of time, or the more ruthless ravages of mutilation. The interior presented a still more lamentable appearance, for in addition to injuries parallel in their nature to those exhibited externally, the noble nave was disfigured and crowded with galleries and pews, far exceeding in hideousness, and in their monstrous arrangement, the absurdities which unhappily crowd the majority of the churches of our larger towns. Some idea may be formed of the arrangement, when I mention that the aisles were filled up with galleries, the fronts of which were in advance of the pillars, and entirely enclosed the capitals, so that I had no means of knowing whether they yet existed, and ultimately found that they had in great part been cut away; that the west end was crossed by a third gallery of enormous depth, and that immediately in front of this western gallery stood the pulpit, nearly the whole of the seats in the nave facing the west! or rather, this was the direction to which they generally tended, for it would be wrong to say that boxes of every form and position faced anyone direction. The pillars and arches were cut and mutilated to make room for gallery stairs, and for the heads of persons sitting near them; indeed, one of the finest arches was rendered dangerous by the entire removal of one of its principal orders. While the nave was thus encumbered, the transepts were disused, and the chancel only used at the time of the Holy Communion. E 16 ACCOUNT OF THE RESTORATION OF

In addition to these wanton disfigurements, the interior had suffered much from time and from less deliberate injuries. The four noble pillars which carry the tower, appear to have given way at an early period, and several of them had been cased round with cumbrous masses of stonework for additional strength, while on the north side one of the nave arches had been walled up for the same purpose. The interments which had from time to time taken place near these piers had caused a constant increase of the evil, till, at the time when I surveyed the church, they presented alarming symptoms of failure-symptoms which, at a subsequent period, were found to be more than confirmed by the reality. Added to the above more obvious defects were others, more open to difference of opinion, as being the effects of alterations which, though destroying, so far as they went, the original character of the building, were themselves so old as to have become associated with the traditional aspect of the church, and reduced to a kind of harmony with it by companionship in decay. On these points I shall have subsequently to speak more in detail, as they involved some of the most important questions which were suggested by the restoration. Having made a careful survey of the building, I drew up a report, recommending the general course to be adopted, the cost of which, even if partially carried out, would amount to several thousands. Mr. Coldwell then commenced application for aid, though not yet in a public manner. The result was, however, such, when compared with the magnitude of the work, as to afford comparatively slight encourage- ment, and the undertaking seemed likely to languish, if not ultimately to fail, when it was roused to new life and activity by a happy coincidence of circumstances, which directed to it that munificent offering which has become the great cause of its success. I mention it in the way in which it came to my own knowledge, as illustrating what appears to me a most striking and interesting instance of the interposition of Providence for the rescue of a noble temple from humiliation and decay. The friend, to whom I have before alluded, being about to leave the county, I asked him to take an opportunity which offered of visiting Stafford and looking over St. Mary's with me. We found Mr. Coldwell quite out of heart as to the success of the project, and almost ready, though with a very ill-will, to abandon or to postpone it. My friend encouraged him so far as he could, but we left him with a strong impression that there was little or no prospect of success. It was hardly two days after my return to London, that I received a letter from my friend, stating that on his arrival at his residence in one of the southern counties, he had found a letter awaiting him, asking his advice in the selection of' a proper object for the expenditure of £5000 devoted to the building or restoration of a church, and expressing a preference for the county of Stafford! It is almost needless to say that the writer of this letter was Mr. Watts Russell, of Ilam Hall, and that my friend's suggestion of the most important parish church in his county as a worthy object for his munificence, met with a joyful response, so that within little more than a week from our leaving Mr. Coldwell, disheartened, and despairing of success, my friend was authorized to communicate to bim an offer of £5000 for the restoration of the interior, on condition that subscriptions should be raised amounting to £3000 (at first more wisely proposed to be £5000) for the exterior. A more sudden, or a more manifestly providential change of prospects, could hardly be imagined. Mr. Coldwell, filled with gratitude to the (at first unknown) benefactor of his church, embarked with the utmost zeal and energy in raising subscriptions, and his applications were promptly responded to; so that, within a very few weeks, from being without funds, and almost without hope, he was placed in a position for making preparations for the actual commencement of the long-wished-for restoration. I will now give a general outline of the leading features of this noble and interesting fabric, and of the principles on which the restoration was conducted. I shall be more minute on the latter, because the correct ST. MARY'S CHURCH, STAFFORD. 17 principles of restoration have of late received, as they deserve, considerable attention, and because this work has, from its peculiar circumstances, necessarily called attention, during its progress, to many of the most important questions which the discussion of these principles involve, and has consequently been often honoured by being referred to by writers on the subject. The church is cruciform, consisting of a chancel of five bays, with wide aisles, which have originally been covered by high pitched span roofs; a nave, also of five bays, with narrower aisles, covered with sloping roofs,-a central tower and transepts. The chancel with its aisles is wider, though slightly shorter, than the nave and its aisles, but about equal to it in area. There is a slight indication, in the west end, of Norman work, but as this appears to consist only of a few stones from an earlier church, no part of the present church can be said to be earlier than the very earliest variety of the pointed style, dating, probably, a little before the commencement of the thirteenth century. The whole of the nave and its aisles, with the lower portions of the central tower, with its piers and arches, appear to have been entirely of this date; but have undergone so many subsequent alterations as to retain, externally, but slight vestiges of its style, though internally it is still nobly developed. The pillars and arches of the nave-arcade are entirely of this style. The pillars are clusters of four, with noble foliated capitals, with the square abacus. The arches are very boldly moulded, chiefly with the pointed bowtell. This arcade is very massive, and is peculiarly noble and striking in its character (Plate 11, fig. 1). The tower piers consist of a deep series of shafts, set in square recesses, with caps and arch mouldings of similar character to the last. (Plate 11, fig. 2.) It would appear that the tower piers were built a little earlier than the nave arcades, and that it was not intended that the latter should be quite so lofty as they were subsequently made. The half pillars, or responds, adjoining the tower, have their capitals on a lower level than those of the other pillars of the arcades, and the difference is made up by a block of squar~ masonry (Plate 11, fig. 3), built upon the capitals, with a second abacus, or impost, bringing up the height to the required level. This is one of the many instances we meet with indicating changes of design in portions of work which do not evince a difference of date, and the change was manifestly a very great improvement. I have noticed a corresponding proof of change of plan in the church of Bingham, in Nottinghamshire, where, though the tower and the arcades agree exactly in apparent date, the former has a roof-weathering at so Iowa level, that had a roof ever been made to fit to it, its plates would have cut off the crowns of the arcades. It is clear that, as at Stafford, the tower was carried up a little in advance, probably as a precaution against unequal settlement, and that the nave, though built immediately afterwards, was made higher than first intended. The nave of St. Mary's, when first erected, was without a clerestory, the centre having a lofty span roof, and the aisles sloped roofs of high pitch, abutting against the arcade walls about eighteen inches below the eaves of the centre roof: the aisle walls were consequently but low. This original construction is shown by roof-weatherings, or other marks, at each end of the nave. In the eastern end of the nave, over the tower arch, is a range of small arcading of the same early date, the alternate arches having openings into the tower. The only other remains of this date are the north and south doorways,-the former, simple and of remarkably narrow proportion; the latter, fine and well moulded (Plate 11, fig. 4 ),-and one lancet window, of somewhat rude form, in the west end of the north aisle. There are also indications of early buttresses in the lower parts of the aisle walls; and on the interior of the same walls were found remnants of ancient stone benches. The next portion, in point of date, is the south transept, which was erected after the early pointed style had attained its full maturity. It was, previously to the restoration, in a sadly mutilated state, though retaining enough to prove its former beauty. On the south was originally, as our researches afterwards showed, a most noble triplet, the lights separated externally by small chamfered buttresses (Plate 12, fig. 1); 18 ACCOUNT OF THE RESTORATION OF

to the west was a single lancet. In the south-western buttress runs up a small stair, which leads, by a triforium passage passing through the wall, and crossing the window last named by a stone slab (Plate 12, fig. 2), to the upper parts of the tower. This passage is lighted from the interior by a small arcade, now glazed. The transept opens into the aisles of the chancel and nave by arches of great beauty and richness; the jambs being richly shafted, and the arches most beautifully moulded. They differ from one another chiefly in the capitals, those towards t.he chancel being foliated, while those to the nave are moulded, but with extraor- dinary richness and variety. (Plate 12, figs. 3 & 4.) The details of this transept are perhaps the richest in moulding in the whole church, and its proportions are quite equal to it.s details. Next in date-and perhaps differing from it but by a brief interval-comes the south aisle of the chancel, possibly including t.he chancel itself, though it is very difficult in this part to say, with certainty, whether or not there are actual differences of date. The first two windows of this aisle are small, and very plain triplets under, comprising arches both within and without (Plate 12, fig. 5), while the two remaining windows (for though the chancel has five arches, it has but four windows in length) are of a more advanced character, being mullioned windows of three lights, the heads containing three circles foliated. These windows are richly shafted and moulded (Plate 13, fig. 1), contrasting singularly with the plainness of their immediate neighbours. The eastern window of this aisle, though clearly of the same date, would appear to have retrograded in style, being a triplet of detached lights (Plate 13, fig. 2) under a comprising segmental arch within and without. It is exceedingly rich and beautiful in its details, though somewhat short in proportion, owing to a curious continuation of the parapet and gutter across the base of the gable, which affords access to the gutter between the roofs from the staircase at the south-east angle. The turret which contains this staircase is very singular and picturesque in its design, and is crowned by a stone pyramid of strangely irregular form. The buttresses of this aisle are very bold, and terminate in gabled heads. The base moulds of both the south ~ransept and chancel are of unusual boldness and mass, and the parapet of the latter is corbelled out in a very remarkable but not unpleasing manner (Plate 13, fig 3). The east end of the chancel contains a noble five-light mullioned window, probably corresponding in date (Plate 13, fig. 4,) with those of the south aisle. The jambs and arch are well shafted and moulded, but the tracery had been lost, though now restored with some degree of certainty from a small portion which was dis- covered. The gable over this window contained the lower part of a triple niche, and the gable of the south aisle contained a large foliated circular window. The arcades of the chancel are less striking than those of the nave, and hardly come up to the scale of richness evinced by the windows. They are clusters of four, and are filleted, and have simple moulded capitals. The arches moulded, but not very richly (Plate 13, fig. 5). There is a curious difference in the pillars nearest to the east end, which are widened from east to west, with a portion of wall of a few inches in length intervening between the two half clusters, as if to receive a detached reredos, advanced by one bay from the eastern wall, as in the abbey church at Selby. The two eastern arches are somewhat narrower than the others, and abut into the wall without responds, the lower order being corbelled (Plate 14, fig. 1). There is a beautiful double piscina in the east wall of the south aisle, cutting singularly into the jamb of the east window of that aisle. It seems to have been so placed to make roopl for the entrance to the stair- turret before mentioned, which is internal, as that occupying a similar position at Dorchester (Plate 14, fig. 2). The remaining aisle of the chancel is of decidedly later date, though still somewhat early, ill the "deco- rated," or "middle-pointed" style. It is not, however, a very good specimen of its age, and is very plain in its details. In the north transept, however, we have a noble development of this beautiful style. The three-and-four- light (Plate 14, figs. 3 & 4) windows of the sides, and that of seven lights in the (Plate 14, fig. 5) front, are, ST. MARY'S CHURCH, STAFFORD. 19

both in beauty of tracery and in richness and depth of moulding, in the best style of their period. The proportions of the large window, however, suffer much from the want of height, caused by its being placed over a doorway, and from the height of the transept being limited by the earlier portions of the church. The buttresses and doorway of this transept (Plate 15, fig. 1 & 2) are also very beautiful, the former decorated by singular detached pinnacles. The interior on each side of the doorway is decorated by canopied and crocketed panelling of good design (Plate 15, fig. 3). This transept opens into the chancel aisle by an arch of good though simple design, and into that of the nave by one of much more elegant character, (Plate 16, fig. 1 & 2) the capitals containing very beautiful natural foliage. The next portion in date-and the last which may be considered as belonging to the original structure- is the upper story of the tower. This is of the latest variety of the decorated or middle-pointed style, and is singular and beautiful in design. After retaining its square plan to a short distance above the roofs, it falls into an octagon by angular weatherings decorated by large and rich pinnacles; the sides facing the cardinal points contain each two double-lighted windows, while the remaining sides are imperforated and plain. This octagon was formerly cro·wned with a lofty stone spire, which fell in 1593. From the above outline it would appear, that the church was in progress of erection through a period of more than a century and a half, but that, though each successive portion exhibited the characteristics of its own age, the general design was, both in plan and in the outline of its forms, uniform and consistent with itself. It is difficult to form an opinion as to whether each of the successive portions displaced some remaining part of a more ancient church, or whether the Norman church was first entirely destroyed, and an imperfect church made use of during this long period of re-erection. I am inclined to the latter opinion, as it seems hardly probable, that if the older church were of anything like the extent of the present one, it would have been entirely rebuilt without any remnant remaining, and that rebuilding should have commenced within a century of its own erection. Though we knew the collegiate body to have existed from Saxon times, '* I should conjecture that the original church was small, and that, from reasons not now to be discovered, it was found desirable to rebuild it on a much more extensive plan, though the funds at command would only allow of slow and periodical progress. During this systematic rebuilding, the only alteration of consequence which can be traced in the work after it had been executed, is the west end of the nave, where a doorway (Plate 15, fig. 4) and a four- light window were inserted, at about the same date with the east window, or nearly a century after the date of the erection of the nave. Subsequently to its completion, however, the building has undergonC' very extensive alterations. The first is in the aisles of the nave, where the walls were raised, and windows inserted at the very latest date of the decorated period, or possibly a little later, though retaining that character. At about the same period, a doorway was inserted under the great triplet in the south transept. The next alteration was of a more serious character, being the substitution of a clerestory with a very low roof for the high pitched roof of the nave. This appears to have been effected late in the fifteenth, or early in the sixteenth century. The roof is very good in its details, being richly moulded, and with good carving, and is, in fact, a very fine work of its age. The clerestory windows are inferior in merit, though not by any means offensive. This was, in fact, an age of roofs rather than of fine windows; though, as is often the case, they seem to have mistaken their forte,-for, poor as their windows often were, they frequently

" It is mentioned in Domesday Book as having thirteen canons prebendaries.

F 20 ACCOUNT OF THE RESTORATION OF so filled the walls as scarcely to leave room for intervening piers. At about the same age, (indeed, it is possible it may be the earlier of the two,) a clerestory was added to the beautiful north transept. This is much better in its windows, though very inferior in its roof. It is much to be lamented, as destroying the outline of a very beautiful and peculiar feature. At the same time, the high roof of the north aisle of the chancel must have been replaced by a flat, to avoid blocking up the new clerestory windows. The next alteration or set of alterations was the addition of a most miserable clerestory and roof to the chancel; also the entire alteration of the upper part of the south transept, where a flat roof was added, at a much lower level than that of the nave, chancel, or the north transept, so as to cut off the head of the noble triplet. In consequence of this the two piers of the triplet were removed, and a flat elliptical arch introduced from its outer jambs, and filled by debased perpendicular mullions and tracery, the parapet above being embattled on a dead level. The details of the whole of these works were poor in the extreme, and the woodwork, where the rude form of the rough beams was departed from, seemed to exhibit Elizabethan symptoms. This leads me to the opinion that these features were the result of repairs of injuries sustained by the fall of the spire in 1593. After this, the principal alterations to be noticed are, the modern Roman parapet to the lantern, and the south porch of the same style; added to which are the incumbrances and mutilations which I have before mentioned, and which do not deserve a detailed record. The chief difficulties presented by the restoration arose from the alterations above named. The original high pitched roofs had been removed from the nave, transepts, and the chancel, (excepting only its southern aisle,) and flat roofs substituted, with more or less of clerestory. It might be argued of all, that they were manifest infringements upon the design,-that they belonged to a corrupt period,-and that they should consequently be removed, and the original forms restored; or, on the contrary, it might be said of all, that though not original, they were intended as improvements,-and that though they might be in a style which it is fashionable to call" debased," they must have arisen from some practical inconvenience found to result from the older forms,-and that, in any case, they were as they had been for centuries, and that we should be acting more prudently and with greater modesty if we left them in their present form. These were early days of church restoration, and I cannot claim credit for acting upon any very accurately-defined principle. The minds of church restorers were then neither enlightened nor perplexed by the three grand principles of restoration since enunciated,-they were equally ignorant of the "destructive," the" conservative," and the" eclectic." My own feelings would probably have led me in two opposite directions. My love of early forms might have led me towards their perfect restoration, while a constitutional tendency to conservatism might have led me to shun the destruction of any old work. I have no recollection, however, of any very severely-conflicting feelings on the points I had to decide, and I believe that I took an obvious and unsophisticated course. r found that as regards the nave, the alterations had been so entire, that it was impossible to restore original forms; while the later parts possessed so much merit, that it would be most undesirable-indeed, barbarous-to destroy them. r consequently never contemplated any other course than their retention. As regards the north transept, the case was in some degree less clear, inasmuch as the old features were in no degree obliterated, so that their restoration would not have been difficult , nor was there, as on the nave , a beautiful roof; the clerestory, however,-though its erection must be regretted, possessed some degree of merit, and was in such a state as to require little or no reparation, so that r saw no reason to think of removing it. The case of the chancel was decidedly different; here there not only remained ample evidence of the original design,-one of the high gables actually existing, and the windows and other features affording sufficient data for restoration,-but the later portions appeared to me so utterly worthless in character, or ST. MARY'S CHURCH, STAFFORD. 21 rather, so devoid of all pretensions to character, that the idea of retaining them scarcely occurred to me. Added to which, a large part of the walls (the whole of the south, and most of the east wall) were so dilapidated, as to require to be either wholly or partly rebuilt, and the roofs and clerestory were in a defective state; so that there seemed to be every reason in favour of the restoration of the original three-gabled form, which I at once determined upon; though at a later period I altered the plan so far as to retain the flat roof over the north aisle,-a modification occasioned partly by economy, and partly from a difficulty arising from the junction of a high roof to this aisle with the late clerestory of the transept, which would involve the anomaly of late windows blocked up by an early roof. The case of the south transept appeared to me to be as decidedly in favour of restoring its early forms as that of the chancel. The jambs existed of a manifestly very noble triplet, while the window which filled the interval was, as it appeared to me, most wretched, and in place of the lofty gable was a horizontal battlement not elevated on a high clerestory as to the nave and the opposite transept, but only slightly above the base of the former gable. Indeed, flat as was the elliptical window arch, the cornice was so low as to intersect it. The old roof line was marked deeply on the tower wall, so that there seemed but little difficulty in a tolerably faithful restoration, which was rendered the more tempting from the fact that the late and corrupt interpo- lations were in a state of at least as great decay as the remains of the original; I therefore felt little hesi- tation as to the course to be followed. On these questions, however, I was not allowed to remain long in the state of unsophisticated simplicity, under which I had arrived at my conclusions; I still, however, feel that they were in the main correct, though not founded on very abstract or clearly defined principle. A discussion which arose about this time tended greatly to clear my own views on the subject of restoration generally; and, as little questions often tend towards the establishment of great principles, I think it has not been without its effect on the minds of others. In any case, as it occurred at so early a period of the revival of true principles of Church Architecture, before the ideas of those concerned in the revival had become either defined or sophisticated, and before the forma- tion of distinct parties on such a subject had been dreamed of-it may not be either uninteresting or useless to enter somewhat at length into its details. The views entertained by the parties to the discussion were by no means antagonistic. It was not (to use the appellations recently adopted) a conflict between a " Conservative" and a " Destructive," and scarcely between a Conservative and an " Eclectic;" the discussion was between two Conservatives, differing chiefly in the degree and definition of their conservatism. The one, modified in his feelings by a love of early forms, and willjng for their revival to sacrifice a few late features which appeared to his taste to be devoid of merit; the other free from any such decided preference, and venerating ancient work equally in all its phases. With an opponent with whom I agreed so far in general feeling, it was difficult to contend for the particular point on which we differed, without the risk of appearing to oppose principles on which we most heartily coincided; and in arguing for the exception, care was required to avoid calling in question the validity of the rule. The objections to what I proposed were communicated to me in a paper sent me by Mr. Coldwell, which however embodied also opinions expressed by other objectors, which merited less consideration than those of the highly gifted individual to whom I have hitherto referred - these I shall not notice, as they have no claim to general interest. The following are extracts from the paper:- "A clergyman, eminently skilled in Ecclesiastical Architecture, has very carefully and minutely "examined the drawing, showing the contemplated external restoration and repairs, as compared with the " building in its existing state. " His general view of the subject is, that we contemplate TOO MUCH-SO much, indeed, as nearly to destroy 22 ACCOUNT OF THE RESTORATION OF

"the existing character of the fabric as it has presented itself for centuries past, and to gIve an entirely " different and modern appearance. " He deems the alteration of the form of the present roof of the south transept to that proposed, not only "as a useless waste of money, but also as prejudicial in its effect, thinking it preferable that the transept "should comport in appearance with the nave, as it does at present, rather than with the chancel, as contem- " plated. "The substitution of the window with three lancet lights over the south transept door for the present " one, he considers as causing great outlay without any corresponding advantage. " The feeling of many of the subscribers who have examined the lithograph of the church as it is, with " the one showing the proposed alterations, is in many respects the same as above. " The VENERABLE APPEARANCE exhibited in the former, seems to them lost to a much greater extent than "they like in the extensive alterations of the latter." I was not at the time made acquainted with the name of the author of these friendly objections, whom I afterwards found to be the Reverend J. L. Petit, who has since become so deservedly distinguished from several most interesting publications, and particularly from his "Remarks on Church Architecture," which appeared during the same year that our correspondence on the subject of St. Mary's commenced. To this most valuable work I may do well to refer, as containing a statement of the author's views on the subject of Church Restoration-views with which I in most respects cordially agree, and, where I do not agree, can readily sympathize. He commences a chapter" On Modern Repairs and Adaptations," with some lines written by a friend " On the Projected Repairs of Barfreston Church;" two detached passages from which will do much to explain his mm feelings- " Delay the ruthless work awhile. 0, spare, Thou stern, unpitying demon of repair, This precious relic of an early age! More fatal is thy touch than the fell rage Of warring elements. Yon ancient wall- Better to see it tott'ring to its fall, Than deck'd in new attire with lavish cost: Form, dignity, proportion, grace-all lost ! How many a sacred pile in this fair land, Touch'd and retouch'd by some unholy hand, A modern motley garb incongruous wears, Veiling the venerable form of years !" Again,- " It were a pious work, I hear you say, To prop the falling ruin, and to stay The work of desolation. It may be That ye say right; but, 0, work tenderly; Beware lest one worn feature ye efface- Seek not to add one touch of modern grace; Handle with reverence each crumbling stone, Respect the very lichens o'er it grown; And bid each ancient monument to stand, Supported e'en as with a filial hand." Mr. Petit then proceeds to remark upon the extraordinary union of diversity of style with harmony of effect, displayed in the various parts of most of our cathedrals and churches. " The Architects," he says, " of the later styles found it necessary both to rebuild, to repair, and to enlarge; and they almost always did " this in the prevalent manner of the day; consequently a great number of our churches are a mixture of every " kind of Gothic, and yet appear perfectly consistent,-as if their successive builders had been actuated by " the same spirit while they adopted different styles." ST. MARY'S CHURCH, STAFFORD. 23

He then describes the extraordinary varieties of age and style to be observed in the cathedrals of Ely, York, Gloucester, and Winchester, where, though there is little or no attempt to disguise or to imitate, and often scarcely to adapt, the wholes are yet in admirable keeping, and "a better effect could scarcely have " been obtained by the most perfect uniformity." "Many of our country churches," he adds, "are actually " heaps of chapels built at different periods; and such are generally the most striking and picturesque. And " we even see the gables of fronts changed over and over again to suit different successive repairs, and yet " betraying in no one of their stages a want of due proportion: therefore he who is really acquainted with the " principles of the art may repair, enlarge, and beautify, without fear,-but alas, for the building which falls " into the hands of an ignorant or presumptuous restorer!" " It is truly grievous," he then proceeds, "to see the proportions of a beautiful edifice needlessly defaced, " or the character stamped on it by artists who worked upon rules nearly as unerring as those of instinct, swept " away by persons who know such rules only as are dictated by their own caprice and fancy, or at best sug- " gested by a very limited course of observation. How many a noble church, that for ages has preserved its " beauty in spite of accident, violence, or decay, seems to writhe and struggle under the fantastic additions and " incongruous ornaments of some architect who fancies he can supply what its original designer has omitted, " or correct what he has planned!" One more quotation may suffice to explain the tone of feeling which led to the friendly correspondence alluded to. After urging the expediency of "working tenderly," he adds, "There are few of our parish " churches that have not a certain individual character, as impossible to define, but as easy to recognise, as the " features of a countenance; this the tide of modern architecture threatens to overwhelm,-to bring all indis- " criminately to one standard and level. I would ask, is the moral effect produced by this sweeping system " beneficial? . Is it either kind or prudent to disregard that admonitus locorum, which may exercise a more " powerful influence than we imagine in attaching our countrymen both to their church and institutions?" This striking and most truthful sentiment he illustrates by some very touching lines, describing the return of a wanderer, worn by the effects .of war, climate and age, to his native village; he finds, as he anticj ~ pates, no early comrade to recognise and welcome him; he looks in vain for the familiar scenes so dear to his memory,-nature and rustic art are alike changed.

" The winding brook, unconscious erst of rule, Yields to the straight canal and stagnant pool; Its humble thatch the garnish'd cottage scorns, A pillar'd front the modest farm adorns."

He endeavours to repress his regret by the reflection that these are but indications of prosperity, and con- soles himself by thinking that one dear and sacred object will still remind him of the scenes of his childhood. "Lives such memorial still? The house of prayer, Age, and the storm, and man alike must spare; 'Mid all the changes of this altered scene, One spot shall be as it hath ever been; One dear and solemn record still shall last, A link to bind the future with the past."

He hastens to reach this dear object of his memory, and at length it falls upon his view; but what does he see?

* * *" Are those the hallow'd walls? Is that the cherished monument of years?"

All is changed! The" ivy mantled porch," the "giant buttress," the "grey belfry," are alike veiled III modern trappings.

G 24 ACCOUNT OF THE RESTORATION OF

" Above the pile, mistaken and abused, Spire, pinnacle, and turret range confused."

No early form is now to be recognised, nothing to preserve the identity of the once venerable pile, nor to form a link between the wanderer's youth and age.

"Enough; the charm had fled. He stood and gazed On the strange vision, doubtful and amazed; Across his bosom pass'd a sadd'ning chill: He turn'd, and felt he was a wanderer still."

It is impossible not to feel the most cordial sympathy with sentiments such as those expressed by the above quotations. Such feelings should be, in fact, the very key-note of restoration.* That they cannot be strictly acted up to is a fact inherent on the nature of practical repairs; but I hold that they should be viewed as the rule, and the unavoidable or sometimes even desirable deviations from them as the exceptions, and that their more or less perfect realization should be the object at which every church restorer should aim, and the measure of his success; the antagonistic, or rather the defensive principle, by which cold practical expediencies or imagined necessities on the one hand, and love of change or fancied improvement on the other, should be restrained. No one, however, but he that has tried it, and is constantly trying it, knows how easy it is to subscribe to such sentiments, but how difficult to realize them in their practical working out. However earnest the restorer may be in his" conservatism," he will find that in practice he is often obliged to fall short of it. "Destructiveness" and "Eclecticism" need no advocates; cold and heartless as they are, they are always ready to argue for themselves, and practical difficulties and necessities, even in the absence of any love or desire for change, are ever at hand to back them. Those who take the trouble to defend them can have little experience, or they would see that their arguments are needless. It is "conservatism" which is in constant need of a firm defender; not a blind advocate, who defends all that is, as of necessity right, but one who keeps the preservation of the sacred relics of Christian art, the foundation-stones of its revival, constantly in view, and who, if he sees it expedient to restore an early form at the cost of removing a later one, or to remove early features from some inevitable necessity, does so with regret; who if unavoidably called upon to be "destructive" or "eclectic," knows how to instil warmth and feeling into these chilly elements, and to make them bend to the tone and character of the building he is treating. I say the more on this subject because, in the controversy I am mentioning, I find myself apparently on the other side, arguing, in fact, for the exception, though not against the rule. I will now give a few extracts from my first defensive letter, merely premising that I did not at the time know to whom I 'was indebted for the suggestions, and that I had not yet seen the work from which I have made the above quotations. The acknowledgment with which I commenced will, however, show that I agreed to some extent with Mr. Petit's principles. " I feel too deeply the responsibility which devolves upon an architect when called upon to repaIr or " restore an ancient church, and the extreme difficulty of many of the practical questions to which such a task " gives rise, not to be grateful for any suggestions with which I may be favoured by those who have given " attention to the subject, however contrary they may be to my own previous opinions. The present case is one " of more than usual difficulty, which renders the unbiassed opinion of others the more valuable. As a general

------. ~~- '*' Some passages which follow, ~s well as some of the foregoing quotations from Mr. Petit, I have, sinr:e writing the pre~ent paper, embodied nearly in their present form in a papel' " On the Principles of Hestoration," read before the Buckinghamshire and Northamp- tonshire Architectural Societies, at their respective annual meetings in the yeard 1848 and 1849, and subsequently published, under the title of " A Plea for the faithful Restoration of an Ancient Church." ST. MARY'S CHURCH, STAFFORD. 25

" principle, I am quite of opinion that the great danger attendant upon restorations is the carrying them too " far; and the great difficulty, not only as regards the judgment of the Architect, but still more in the practical " execution of the work, is to know where to stop. I readily confess, that in the present instance I have been " led on in working out the drawings, almost by necessity, to carry the restorations to a much greater extent " than I should at the first sight have contemplated, and this being the case, I am not at all surprised that those " who have only had the opportunity of taking the general view of the subject, without following it out, step by " step as I have done, should not be prepared to go all the way with me; but, at the same time, I feel that " their more fresh and unprejudiced opinions may very possibly serve to correct misconceptions into which I " may have fallen. " It has often struck me that, viewing an ancient edifice as a national monument, as an original work of " the great artists from whom we learn all we can know of Christian Architecture, and as a work which, when " once restored, however carefully, is to a certain extent lost as an authentic example, it is hardly right that " the fate of such a building should be left wholly to the local committee or to their architect, but that it " would be well if they could call to their aid two or three non-professional and disinterested parties well " known to understand the subject." The commencement of the next extract will appear at first sight somewhat adverse to Mr. Petit's principle of keeping up traditional and associated forms, as expressed in the latter quotations I have made from him. " On the general view of the subject, it is quite certain, that we propose to alter the existing character of " the church, and that which it has presented for centuries-at least, this would be the case as regards many " parts of the church; but, at the same time, we contend that we restore the original character of those parts, " and that though its appearance will be different from what has been seen by the present inhabitants, or by " some few generations before them, and though it may appear modern to those who measure antiquity by the " extent of their own memories, or of those of their immediate predecessors, it will, in fact, have a far more " ancient character than it has now, and that which it probably retained for centuries, and would still possess, " had it not been wilfully mutilated in an age of degenerate taste. I do not wish to lay it down as a general " rule, that good taste requires that every alteration which from age to age has been made in our churches " should be obliterated, and the whole reduced to its ancient uniformity of style. These varieties are indeed " most valuable, as being the standing history of the edifice, from which the date of every alteration and " repair may be read, as clearly as if it had been verbally recorded, and in many cases the later additions are " as valuable specimens of architecture as the remains of the original structure, and merit an equally careful "preservation. I even think, that if our churches were to be viewed, like the ruins of Greece and Rome, " only as original monuments from which ancient architecture is to be studied, they would be more valuable " in their present condition, however mutilated and decayed, than with any, even the slightest degree of " restoration; but taking the more correct view of a church, as a building erected for the glory of God and " the use of man (and which must, therefore, be kept in a proper state of repair), and finding it in such a " state of dilapidation that the earlier and latcr parts-the authentic and the spurious-are alike decayed, and " all require renovation to render it at all suitable to its purposes, I think we are then at liberty to exercise our " best judgment upon the subject, and if the original parts are found to be 'precious,' and the later insertions " to be 'vile,' I think we should do quite right in giving perpetuity to the one, and in removing the other. " As, however, an erroneous judgment might lead to unfortunate results, this is just one of those points on "which the opinion of a kind of antiquarian commission might advantageously be taken. In the present " instance we have used our best judgment; and as we found that the original character of the chancel and " the south transept was particularly fine, but that it had been destroyed by interpolations of a most worthless

.' 26 ACCOUNT OF THE RESTORATION OF

" description, we thought it best to attempt a restoration to the primitive style, while, on the other hand, " finding that in the nave and the north transept the later works possessed much merit, and were in some " respects practical improvements upon the first design, we propose to leave these untouched, and to repair " the whole in its present form."

I then proceeded to give my reasons more III detail for the restoration of the south transept to its early form. " I would then remark, that after a most careful consideration of the subject, I am convinced that this " transept, as we have drawn it, is as nearly as possible in conformity with the original,* and that the design " must have been a peculiarly fine one. The gable is clearly marked on the tower wall, and the original " jambs of the lancet-windows still remain. I am also equally confident that the form to which the front has "been altered is the very extreme of ugliness and barbarism, and that the late insertions do not contain " one feature which can render them valuable. As, therefore, the late features are equally decayed with the "early ones, I think it would be very bad judgment to perpetuate an unsightly innovation, and to lose the " opportunity of restoring a noble original. Again, I do not think this part should agree with the nave " rather than with the chancel, and for several reasons :-first, the style of the chancel is good, and that of " the nave bad, as being the result of numerous and discordant alterations; secondly, the nave is incapable of " restoration to its original design, while the south side of the chancel being comparatively unmutilated, claims " a preference as a guide for the intervening transept, which is equally capable of restoration; thirdly, the " original structure of the south transept is nearly of the same date and style with that of the chancel, but " differs materially from that of the nave, and in present appearance the transept and the nave agree only in the " heterogeneous medley of their different parts; and fourthly, by the perfect restoration of the chancel and " south transept, the principal view of the church, as approached from the town, will present an entire mass " of an uniform and imposing character; while, by leaving the transept as it is, this view of the building "will be destroyed, without any compensation, excepting that the contrary view will retain its present " uniformly mutilated appearance." To this letter Mr. Petit did me the honour to reply, through a mutual friend who was deeply interested in the work. As the letters have been lithographed, and as I have no object but to show the difference which existed between parties agreeing so much in general feeling, I think I shall not be doing wrong by giving a few short extracts from his letter. He commences by calling me to order for apparent lightness in speaking of the works of the later of our old architects. " I have read Mr. Scott's observations with attention, but much as I am pleased with their general tone " and spirit, I cannot say that they have altogether convinced me that the proposed restoration of Stafford "church, as regards more particularly the front of the south transept, would be an improvement. In the first "place, I think an architect of the present day ought to hesitate long before he pronounces to be vile and " worthless, the works of those who lived when the principles of the art were undoubtedly well understood, " even though the art itself might, from certain circumstances, be on the decline. A period not very distant

.. I must not omit to confess, that in this respect I found myself subsequently to have been in some degree mistaken. My first design appeared to me to be a necessary and unavoidable induction from the existing remains. Yet on afterwards discovering further remains used as material for the erection of more modern parts, I found that my first conjectures had been in some respects erroneous, and that the design had been far more original and far finer than I had supposed. I mention this to show the extreme importance in such cases of delaying (as I happily had done), the actual preparations of the stonework of features to be restored till the removal of the more modern parts, and of most carefully examining every stone of which such parts are constructed, as from these the most valuable information is usually to be derived. Nothing is more painfully annoying, than after having prepared the material for the restoration of an elaborate feature, to find evidences of having been acting on an erroneous impression. ST. MARY'S CHURCH, STAFFORD. 27

" from the time of the alterations he has condemned, must have witnessed the erection of King's Chapel, that " of Eton College, the towers of St. Neot's and Wrexham, and many other exquisite specimens." He then proceeds to admit, that if the state of this latter part is such as to require its reconstruction, he would not recommend that its existing details should be strictly adhered to; but throws out a suggestion for consideration, whether, in such a case, it might not be more consistent to carry out in a more perfect manner the intention of the later, than to revert to the design of the earlier artist. He then gives a slight pen-and- ink sketch, in that characteristic style so peculiarly his own, of what may be imagined to have been the general aspect of the church early in the fourteenth century, and proceeds with a hasty outline of its possible history. " I will assume," he says, "that about the beginning of the fourteenth century the church had an aspect "as follows :-A west front, consisting of the gable (now masked in the face of the wall,) with ends of the " aisle roofs sloping away from it; the door and window now existing, which, with the exception of a few " repairs, are evidently of as early a date; an appropriate porch, occupying the place of the present barbarism, "transept, chancel, and aisles, such as those represented by Mr. Scott; and a tower of any height or "composition, the present octagon being apparently a later addition. We will suppose that some individual, "in honour perhaps of a particular shrine, image, or altar, erected the north transept during the prevalence " of the Decorated style; it is not unlikely that the rest of the parishioners, stimulated by the example, should " be anxious to give the other part of the structure an equal degree of magnificence, and to this we may owe "the clerestory of nave, (in my opinion a very beautiful composition,) and the octagon that now crowns the " central tower. " A want of harmony would now be perceived between the nave and the southern transept, and therefore, "when the state of the fabric demanded a fresh repair, or even before, the architect might have been anxious " to remedy this defect, but the same funds not being attainable which gave its magnificence to the northern " transept, a lower clerestory and less elaborate window were given, care, however, being taken not to lose " sight of the general effect of the richer and better executed parts. We can thus account for the present " aspect of the south transept, and the clerestory of the central part of the chancel; and, as I before remarked, " it might be well to consider whether it would not conduce more to the imposing, and even the uniform "appearance of the building, to carry out the design of the later architects, than attempt to restore that of "the earlier; to raise, instead of taking away, the upper or clerestory range of the transept; to replace the "window (if change be necessary) with a handsome decorated or perpendicular one, not neglecting the " character of those of the nave and clerestory; and to crown the whole with a fine battlement, instead of the " present meagre capping." I may here mention, that in the above hasty conjectural outline, Mr. Petit, speaking probably only from memory, appears to have lost sight of the interval between the style of the north transept and the clerestories which surmount both it and the nave, an oversight which has, I think, materially affected the argument which he founds upon it. Mr. Petit then expresses a doubt as to whether the original window was really a triplet of distinct lancets, or whether, as in the south aisle of the chancel, they were not comprised under one arch; and on this supposed uncertainty of the design founds the following judicious remarks: "I am convinced that the more earnestly and vigorously an architect of the present day has grappled with "the difficulties of Gothic architecture, the more feelingly,vill he confess, that the true principles of the art " are not yet recovered;* and in making this admission he will only be acknowledging a fact, the contrary of

* Ten years of active revival have since elapsed, yet, alas! how little has been done towards the perfect recovery of these principles! A few architects seem to have imbibed and to act upon the true old feeling, and many others have worked up good details into tolerable compositions, from seeing that the style has become fashionable; but the vast majority are still ignorant and heedless both

H 28 ACCOUNT OF THE RESTORATION OF

"which would be next to a miracle, and therefore, however boldly he may experimentalize in his original "designs (the boldest experiments have led to the happiest success), yet, in the restoration of ancient fabrics, " it is impossible for him to be too cautious. He must not pronounce anything belonging to the Gothic era " (taking this in its widest extent) to be vile and worthless, without considering it in all its bearings. Even " if its workmanship be coarse in the extreme, or manifest signs of debasement should appear, he may find "something in its proportions, or its general design, or its evident meaning, which may rescue it from utter "condemnation, and lead him to reflect whether it may not be better for him to attempt clearing it of "undoubted faults and imperfections, than to replace it altogether by a conjectural design of a totally "different character. I am always afraid of modern attempts at Early English. I believe success in this " exquisite style to depend upon a most perfect knowledge of the principles of Gothic architecture, and that "it is utterly impossible to define or detect the minute points which conduce to its beauty." I took the liberty of replying to this interesting communication, commencing by acknowledging a general accordance of sentiment,- "I must acknowledge the propriety of your calling me to order if I have expressed myself irreverently " towards the artists of better times. I have long and most painfully felt, that the modern system of radical " restoration is doing more towards the destruction of ancient art, than the ravings of fanaticism, or the follies "of churchwardens have succeeded in effecting. The existence, or the authenticity, of these invaluable " relics, is invaded on both sides: on the one, by neglect, mutilation, and wanton destruction; and on the "other, by the extreme to which well-meant restorations are too frequently carried. It is difficult to say "from which side the greatest danger is to be apprehended, but between the two I feel convinced that greater "havoc has been made among sacred edifices in our own time-boasting as we do of our revived taste for "their beauties-than they had experienced from three centuries of contemptuous neglect. It is desirable, "for the sake of guarding against both these sources of danger, that those who have a true feeling for the "subject should endeavour to come to an understanding among themselves, and to compare their own views, " so that their differences of opinion may not be taken advantage of by those who are glad of any excuse for " withholding their contributions; or those, on the other hand, whose love of change is equally on the watch " for an opportunity of indulging itself. "With this object, I have been using my humble endeavours, both before and since the present questions "came under discussion, to show the necessity for some such ordeal as I proposed to Mr. Coldwell, to which " matters in dispute, and the plans, &c. of proposed restorations, could be referred, and it has occurred to me " that the societies now existing at Oxford and Cambridge might exert a very beneficial influence of this kind. "One can scarcely look upon any modern restoration without regret, and I tremble for IfHey, Burfreston, " St. Sepulchre's, Cambridge, and other valuable buildings, which are now undergoing, or are about to " submit to, this most dangerous operation. While acknowledging, however, the dangers to which others are " exposed, we are too apt to fancy that we are ourselves individual exceptions, and that our good feeling is

" sufficient to screen ti.3 from the errors into which they may have fallen, and if we have unconsciously acted " on such a principle, most gladly will we retrace our steps, and submit to the judgment of more competent " persons. While, however, I admire most of your general principles, I am not yet convinced of the " correctness of your application of them in the present instance, and therefore trust that you will not think " me presumptuous in troubling you at some length with what are only individual impressions, and are very

4' likely mistaken." . I then ventured upon a system of conjectures as to the history of Stafford Church, (differing a little from of principles and details, yet to them is frequently committed the "restoration" of the invaluable remains of sacred art. If those who have given the most earnest study to the subject, are forced to confess themselves to have attained so little, how melancholy must be the fate of those venerable piles which are left to the tender mercies of those who have little care or feeling for the matter! ST MARY'S CHURCH, STAFFORD. 29

those of Mr. Petit, being about the same as those already given in this paper,) pointed out the long interval between the completion of the building early in the fourteenth century, and the erection of the first clerestories, which must have been late in the fifteenth, or even in the sixteenth century,-an interval which cuts them off from all connexion with the feeling of the first erection, though not from claim on our respect and preservation. I then suggested that the clerestories of the south transept, and the central bay of the chancel, appeared to be still later. "I cannot, however, help thinking that the clerestory of the central bay of the chancel, and that to the " south transept, must belong to a still later age; and from the greater debasement of the style, the increased " poverty of the detail and clumsiness of execution, and from their still more reckless disregard to ancient "features, I imagine that they must have been added subsequently to the dissolution of religious houses, and " the final downfal of all genuine church architecture in England. I have too great a veneration for the " artists of genuine Gothic times (however late) to attribute to them a work which I cannot help considering " so discreditable, and if it were executed subsequently to that sacrilegeous tragedy in which the carved work "of centuries had been' broken down with axes and hammers,' its demerits need not be wondered at, nor " does it appear presumptuous to express an opinion respecting them. It is worthy of consideration, whether "the fall of the spire, in 1593, might not have destroyed some part of the building, and whether the gable " roof and window of the south transept might not have been that portion. It may be said that the details " retain too much of the Gothic feeling for quite so late a period, but it must be borne in mind, that in the "repairs of churches we generally find that some care was taken to avoid those Romanized mouldings which " characterize Elizabethan architecture. In any case I think that this feature cannot be attributed to really " Gothic times, and must therefore be judged by its own intrinsic merits." This conjecture I afterwards (but before closing my letter) found to be strengthened by some early accounts of the accident alluded to, by which it appears that the spire fell" at twice," and beat in the roofs, and destroyed other parts both of the church and chancel, and that the former was repaired by the townsmen, and the latter by the rector, at great cost; and I conclude from this that the south transept was the part of the church, and the central bay the part of the chancel, which suffered. "This important and interesting information," I added, "proves that the proposed restorations are "founded upon the principle of removing nothing which was erected during the era of genuine Gothic design, " but of restoring to its original form such parts as have been altered subsequently to the extinction of our own "national architecture, and on the correctness of this principle we are willing to rest." I also in this letter went into some particulars, to show that the remaining parts of the south transept were sufficient to establish the design without recourse to conjecture, and that the design was so fine as to have the strongest claims upon restoration. I also argued against the idea of carrying out the later design on a better scale, instead of at once restoring the earlier; and after admitting the merits of the earlier clerestories of the nave and north transept, I proceed:- " The work, however, under consideration possesses no such merits,-does not correspond with any other " part of the building,-has been founded on the destruction of valuable work,-and has done violence to the " character of all parts in connexion with it; its decay, therefore, seems a sufficient excuse for its removal. "Again, supposing it granted that this work must undergo some alteration, I cannot agree with you as to "the propriety of carrying out a purely imaginary design, such as one may suppose the architect would "have done had he possessed the means. If the architect purposely destroyed the old gable and windows, to "introduce the present work, I think no one would wish to carry out the ideas of a man who was capable "of such an act. And if (as I think more likely) it was an economical patching up after their accidental " destruction, it would appear more reasonable to take this opportunity of restoring the original form, than " gratuitously to increase the discrepancy." 30 ACCOUNT OF THE RESTORATION OF

Mr. Petit again favoured me with a reply, which, as may be expected, contained many valuable remarks. I will give rather a lengthened extract, which will state the general line of argument,-in which there is much that I can subscribe to, though I still differ as to its application in the present instance:- " The questions to be asked are,-What is the character of the church as it now stands? Whether it is " desirable to preserve or destroy that character, and what are the best means of preserving it? Now, it " cannot be denied that the external character of the church is that of a later style than the Early English; "all the highest parts which catch the eye at a distance are Perpendicular; for the octagon, though it may "belong to the Decorated, has nothing which might not equally well be referred to the succeeding style; "and the clerestories of both the nave and north transept, whatever may be their date, are exceedingly "characteristic,-in fact, I cannot but look upon them as the leading features of the building. The Early "English only appears here and there as we approach, though doubtless the chancel might be reduced to " uniformity in that style, or the very earliest Decorated, without destroying the general character of the " structure. The horizontal termination of the western and northern fronts gives the church the outline "of a perpendicular building; and this was probably felt by the restorer of the south transept front, " whether the fall of the spire at the end of the sixteenth century destroyed the original gable front, or one "that had been finished horizontally like the others. If such be the general character of the church "externally, the question is, whether it should be preserved or infringed upon? I am aware that in the "present day the low gable and the horizontal parapet are decidedly unpopular,-perhaps because the highly "pointed gable is thought to be most congenial with the spirit of Gothic Architecture. Now, it appears to "me, that in the advanced styles, Architects did not think it necessary to bind themselves to one particular " form; they found that it was possible to attain a great variety of outline and composition without really "sacrificing the principles of their art. Hence, late in the Decorated, and throughout the Perpendicular "styles, fronts were often terminated in a different manner from what had been general. Though the high " gable was by no means discarded, the low gable and the horizontal parapet were freely admitted,-probably "in the south of Europe they gained ground at an earlier period, perhaps were never lost,-the roof "preserving the same pitch with those of classical buildings; nor can we deny that many perfect and "magnificent structures have this characteristic. The west front of York is crowned with a low gable, "which is richly ornamented. The east front of the same cathedral has, I believe, a perfectly horizontal "parapet, both to the central compartment and the aisles, and is perhaps the finest composition in Europe. " The west front of Beverley minster has a very depressed gable. The east end of N antwich church, an "exquisite specimen, is almost fiat, and it would be easy to multiply examples. Nor are we at a loss to "perceive the reason of the low roofs generally corresponding with such gables and fiat terminations; the "pinnacles, and even the parapet of the clerestory, was thus enabled to form a part of the general outline at "a distance, instead of merely being relieved by the roof itself. King's Chapel at Cambridge is a splendid " instance. Therefore, however the horizontal fronts of Stafford may be looked upon as innovations on the " old plan, I cannot regard them as debasements; and the same variety that was given to external forms, " (though at a rather later period,) for the sake of convenience and consistency, were given to the windo·ws, " whose arches-especially after the introduction of the fiat wooden roof-were also much depressed. And " I must say, that unless the semi-circular or elliptical arch is essentially ungraceful in itself, or incongruous "as regards the composition in which it is introduced, it appears to me to be no proof of positive uebasement. " In Lincoln cathedral there is an exceedingly rich semicircular arch, in which is set the circular window " of the south transept; it is true the shape of the window sufficiently accounts for the form of the arch, but " still the latter would not, I imagine, have been introduced had it been thought decidedly contrary to Gothic " principles, and the style of this is Decorated of the most magnificent description. I believe I differ with " you as to the merit or value of the part proposed to be altered. If it is not valuable on account of any ST. lVIARY'S CHURCH, STAFFORD. 31

" richness of detail or delicacy of workmanship, it may not be without merit as a composition, even looking at " it by itself, and may be still more valuable as harmonizing with the general character of the building. As " an amateur in sketching, I have always thought that this transept, in its present state, formed a remarkably "fine combination, as well with the nave as with the central tower, and that neither an acute gable nor a " different arrangement of windows would have improved it: this, however, must be a mere matter of opinion. " But I think everyone will agree with me, that we ought not, except on very strong grounds, decidedly to "alter the character by which an ancient church has for many years, perhaps centuries, been known." He then suggests whether the window might not be improved without destroying the then existing outline; but as I could not quite coincide with his views as to the desirableness of that form, and was greatly impressed with the beauty of the early design, I could not bring my mind to any alternative between the pre- servation of the existing design and the complete return to the original. It was shortly afterwards determined that the correspondence should, with proper elevations of the exist- ing building and sketches of it as proposed, be submitted to the Oxford Architectural and the Cambridge Camden Societies for their opinion; and as they felt disposed, under all circumstances, to think with me, the restoration was at length determined on. The result was in some respects peculiarly happy. In taking down the upper and later portions, the walls were found to contain the materials of the ed,rlier Ivork, in many parts so perfect that by fitting them together the entire plan of the piers of the triplet could be formed-the internal fragments being readily distinguishable from those of the exterior by their whitewashed surface. This was the more valuable, as it brought to light a feature which I should not otherwise have discovered, and which showed the window to be in one respect different from, and at the same time much finer, than what I had imagined. This feature is a small chamfered buttress, which intervened between the lancets, increasing the solidity of the piers, and consequently reducing the width of the lights. It also proved that there had been no internal comprising arch as I had imagined, and that the rich cluster of shafts which remained in the internal jambs, and which I thought had belonged to the jambs alone, had in fact been repeated in the piers- thus forming in the interior a very far richer composition. The arch mouldings, to which I had before no clue, were found perfect both for the inside and out, and are very rich and beautiful; we even found the pro- portions of the arches by means of the key-stone, which happily in this case was worked in the solid, and so gave the angle of the apex. We found also proof that these lights were not of equal height, though the exact difference was the only single point left to conjecture-in this I was guided by the outline of the semi-polygonal roof, which I deemed the most probable form, and which seemed to give a good proportion between the central and side lights. The bases of the little buttresses which I have mentioned were in fact remaining on each side of the later doorway, which had been inserted below the window; but, till the discovery of the fragments of the window, their real meaning had not occurred to me, but they now fell at once into the design. Of the remaining features of the front, we discovered the little' gable window entire; the pitch of the gable was marked on the tower; the buttresses, &c., remained; the gable coping was taken from that remain- ing to the south aisle of chancel, and the cross, in the absence of authority, I took from an early grave-cross which we found embedded in the wall. The corbels of the gables were conjectural, but nearly every other feature is restored with absolute authority; indeed, it is clear that the whole composition may be viewed as precisely what originally existed; and I must say that, of its scale, a finer could scarcely be found. I may here mention that a contract for the greater part of the works was entered into with Mr. Evans of Ellaston, near Ashbourn, to whom too great praise cannot be awarded for the admirable and disinterested manner in which the works were carried out. During the early parts of the restorations they were superintended, as clerk of the works, by my late

I 32 ACCOUNT OF THE RESTORATION OF friend, Mr. Edwin Gwilt, son to the restorer of the choir and Lady Chapel of St. Saviour's, Southwark. I accepted his services from the strong feeling of the necessity of having on the spot a person deeply imbued with a love of ancient art; and of the value of his presence in this respect I cannot speak too highly. It is impossible to imagine a person more entirely devoted to, or whose every thought was so completely subdued to his reverence for the works of our early religious artists. He literally "handled with reverence each crumbling stone," though his veneration was confined to the earlier styles, and more particularly the "Early English," for which, from his having been almost brought up from his childhood in St. Saviour's, he had acquired a semi-idolatrous attachment. His ideas of restoration may therefore be imagined to have been sufficiently conservative so far as regards his favourite and almost only acknowledged style; and I may be excused in this notice of him not only as a tribute to a most earnest and devoted young artist, who has been prematurely removed, but as a guarantee for the faithfulness of the parts of the restoration which he superintended. In rebuilding the south and most of the east walls, indeed, he not only restored every architectural detail with the most scrupulous care, but every stone, whether moulding or ashlar, was replaced in its exact size and form, so that the whole jointing of the wall is a perfect transcript of that which preceded it. * Mr. Gwilt's antiquarian notions, however, led to frequent and unpleasant altercations with the workmen, who were, of course, incapable of understanding their object, and the promoters of the work fancied that he went too far. This, added to the circumstance of his disposition not fitting him perfectly for contact with rough practical work-people, rendered his engagement a source of much annoyance to him. I repeatedly endeavoured to prevent this, and to produce a more harmonious feeling-but his health becoming indifferent, he at length, much to my regret, relinquished the work, and was succeeded by Mr. Mortimer, a person of strong natural talent ~nd energy, and who, though better fitted by nature and training for the rougher part of his duties, soon acquired a considerable amount of the feeling which had actuated Mr. Gwilt, and, in fact, carried out the works to a completion with the same spirit of faithfulness to the ancient work, even to its minutest features; and though the extreme arduousness of his duties, which required his constant attention on the spot during the hours of work, and in drawing out the ancient details after the men had left, tended seriously to the injury of his health, he carried them out with a degree of zeal, perseverance and energy, beyond all praise. t One of the most arduous and difficult portions of the work, was the restoration of the piers carrying the central tower. One of them in particular was found to be crushed in a terrible manner, and the foundations to be greatly injured by interments. The other piers were more or less crushed, and, as before-mentioned, had been wholly, or in part enveloped in massive and unsightly stonework, for the purpose of strengthening them. To restore the strength of the one was absolutely necessary, and to bring the others to their original form was essential, not only to the beauty of the church, but to rendering the transepts and chancel capable of.use, and the consequent removal of the galleries which encumbered the nave. This was not effected without great difficulty, expense and danger, and the more so as the piers were found on examination to be far worse than there was at first reason to expect. The plan adopted was,. after proper precautions, to remove all the graves, and all loose or disturbed earth which surrounded the foundations, and to fill the whole space for a

* This may appear needlessly servile; but as there is as much individual character in the jointing of ashlar, almost, as in the architectural features of this style, a character which, though readily discernible, is not easily to be imitated, it is really worth while when a wall has to be rebuilt to reconstruct it stone for stone. t I have now to lament the loss also of this most valued assistant. He had for the last four years superintended the erection of St. Nicholas's Church, at Hamburg, a work of great extent and difficulty, and in the carrying out of which it would be impossible to speak too highly of his services. He lost his life, to the great grief of myself and of all who knew his worth, by a fall from the scaffolding on the 23rd of St'ptember, 1849. It is consoling to know, that for the latter years of his life he had added to his professional merits the less usual qualification of being a devout and consistent Christian and a good churchman. It may be worthy of record that hi s duties at Hamburg, being of a most laborious and often highly irritating nature, and commencing, during the summer, at five o'clock in the morn- ing, hc: during ,the last two years of his life, never or rarely entered upon them without having fortified his mind by reading a chapter or two Il1 the BIble, and going through the Litany, or other portion of the Church Services. ST. MARY'S CHURCH, STAFFORD. 33 considerable distance round with a solid mass of concrete, nearly up to the level of the floor. The foundations being thus secured, all the arches were first supported by a system of bearing shores resting upon the concrete, and of raking shores sloping in different directions. We then commenced upon the worst pier, first applying shores around it sufficient to take, if necessary, all the weight which rested on it. The ruinous mass was then removed in small portions, and new and substantial stonework, which had previously been prepared, substituted, taking care that the footings below the base should spread so as partly to throw weight upon the concrete, and so bring it in to aid the old foundations. On removing the old and shattered ashlar, the interior was in most parts found to be a loose mass of small rubble and dust, the mortar being crushed or perished. Thus it was in some places found necessary to remove the old work to a depth of four feet from the surface, so that by the time the operation had been carried round the piers there could have remained very little of the old walling in the centre. Strong cramps were inserted in the new ashlar, so made that others could be attached to them in rebuilding the next portion, and so as to form, when the pier was finished, complete rings, binding them together at different heights and preventing them from bulging, as had been the case with the old ones. This difficult operation was, in the course of time, carried round all the piers, and they, with their arches, were restored to their original beauty. Two other pillars, one in the nave and the other in the chancel, had also been so crushed by the failure of the tower pier, as to require to be replaced by entirely new ones. It is a great cause of satisfaction and thankfulness, that though this work occasioned great expense and anxiety, it was successfully completed without the occurrence of any serious accident. The other restorations require but little description, and may indeed be gathered indirectly from what has been said. Internally they are pretty complete; nearly every feature being cleaned and restored, the greatest care being taken either to preserve every ancient detail, or where this was impracticable, to restore it faithfully from the remaining authorities. Externally, however, the restorations remain (for want of funds) in many respects incomplete; indeed, nearly the whole of the north side is untouched though much dilapidated; the south side of the nave is also but little restored, and the same may in some degree apply to the west end, though here it is the less to be regretted, as the end is less beautiful than interesting, particularly from the north aisle having at its end the only remaining window of the earliest style of the church, and from the end of the south aisle showing many curious and interesting indications of the abuttal of some of the collegiate buildings upon the church at this point; these, while they give this part a rough and uncouth appearance, add greatly to its archmological interest. The want of restoration most to be regretted, is that of the northern transept, one of the most beautiful and elaborate portions of the church, and which would, if perfect, be as fine a specimen as is often to be met with of the most perfect development of the geometrical variety of the Decorated or Middle Pointed Style. It is sadly dilapidated, and it is much to be wished that its restoration could be carried out. As regards the refitting and arrangement of the interior, I need say but little. I may however remark, in the first place, that it is carried out in two distinct styles. As I had, in the restoration, gone on the principle of bringing the chancel as nearly as I could to its original state, but of restoring the nave rather to its condition at the end of the 15th century, than to its original style, I carried the same principle into the fittings; making those of the chancel agree in character with the original architecture, but those of the nave with the later additions. A principle the more consistent, inasmuch as we have examples remaining of early chancel fittings, but have reason to believe that in the earlier days of Gothic architecture there were no fixed sittings in the naves. I rather regret that we did not restore the ancient longitudinal stone seats, of which we found some remnants along the aisle walls of the nave, but this presented some difficulties which appeared to preclude it. Some objection has, I believe, been raised byecclesiologists, in the arrangement of the transept seats facing north and south. I can only say, that it was absolutely necessary, and that these seats were the means of getting rid of the galleries. 34 ACCOUNT OF THE RESTORATION OF ST. MARY'S CHURCH, STAFFORD.

In arranging the chancel, we restored a curious feature, which we found to have existed, though it had been in later times altered. I refer to the gradual rise of the level by stages from the tower to the altar, each being raised two steps above that to the west of it, so that the ranges of stalls rise one above the other as they approach the east. We were not able, for want of funds, to carry out my design for filling in the arches behind the stalls with parclose screens, which would have materially added to the beauty of the chancel. There are in the arch, south of the altar, three canopied sedilia of oak. The wall at the back of the altar is lined with very rich enamelled tiles as high as the stoning under the window, and the floor of the sacrarium is very richly paved with encaustic tiles, the gift of Herbert Minton, Esq.; and all the stages of the chancel floor are paved, though less richly, with the same beautiful material in a great variety of patterns. The organ (which was enlarged) is placed in the north aisle of the chancel; the choir being, of course, in the chancel itself. * The font is placed in the central passage westward of the crossing. It is one of the most curious and interesting features in the church, and appears to be coeval with its earliest portions. It is only describable by drawing, being quite distinct from any usual type that 1 am acquainted with-(Plate 16, Fig 3). It contains several inscriptions :-Near the lions, which surround its base, is the following legend- DISCRETUS NON ES SI NON FUGIS ECCE I .. EONES. Round the four divisions of the basin is the following imperfect legend, the hiatus in which has caused much perplexity to the curious. + TU: DE: IERUSALEM: ROR ...... ALEM ME: F ACIENS : T ALEM : TAM: PULCHRUM: TAM: SPECIALEM The Rev. - Rawle, late of Cheadle, ingeniously suggested that the imperfect line might have been " Rorem mihi das genialem:" supposing the legend to be put into the mouth of the recipient of baptism, and addressed to our Lord. I cannot help thinking, however, that it was something less elevated, and that the speaker is the font itself, and the party addressed its donor, who had lately come from Jerusalem; though I am at a loss to supply the words.

* The Organ was built by Jno. Geile, in 1795; and rebuilt by Jno. Banfield, of Birmingham, in 1841, when all the stops marked with an asterisk were added by him. The swell extends from CC to F (4~ octaves). The German pedals, from CCC to F (2~ octaves). The stops are as follows;- GREAT ORGAN. Open Diapason Fifteenth. Flute Sesquialtra. * Do. do. Tierce. Principal Trumpet. Stop Diapason Mixture. Twelfth Clarioll. CHOIR ORGAN. Dulciana. Fifteenth. *Clarabella and Stop Diapason Bass. Flute. Principal. *Cremona.

COUPLERS. *Great Organ and Swell. *Pedals to Great Organ. * Do. do. and Choir. '" Do. to Choir. ·Swell and Choir. *Octave Pedals to Great Organ.

SWELL ORGAN. "'Open Diapason. *Double Dulciana. *Stop Do. *French Horn. *Principal. "'Trumpet. *Fifteenth. *Hautboy. *Sesquialtra "'Clarion. Pedal Pipes 16 feet Wood (2 octaves). This powerful Instrument is most effectively played by Mr. Edwin Shargool, whose selection of suitable music for the different seasons of our Church is beyond all praise. A SHORT ACCOUNT

OF

THE WINDOWS, MONUMENTS, ETC.

TO our munificent benefactor (JESSE WATTS RUSSELL, Esq.) we are indebted for the beautiful stained glass with which several of our windows are filled, six of the principal windows having been presented by him. They were executed by the late Mr. Ward, of Soho Square, to the kindness of whose successors, Messrs. Ward and Nixon, we owe the following description of them:-

The east window contains five lights-and the tracery in the head is III the geometrical, or early decorated style, containing three circles. The subjects of the paintings are-

THE ASCENSION.

THE Two l\IARYS AT THE TOMB. THE RESURRECTION Crowning with Thorns. Bearing the Cross. The Crucifixion. Descent from the Cross. Entombment. Entry into Jerusalem. Washing the Disciples' Feet. The Last Supper. Agony in the Garden. Betrayal by Judas. The cost of this window was £480.

At the east end of the south aisle of the chancel is an early English triplet, containing the figures of the three Marys on mosaic ground. The cost of this window was 71l. In the north aisle is a four-light window, with tracery, consisting of ornamental mosaics, and containing medallions, with the lamb and banner, cross and crown of thorns, and other emblematical devices, which cost 105l. In the south transept is a very fine early English triplet, filled with the usual genealogical table of our Saviour, on rich mosaic ground, arranged as follows ;-

LEFT-HAND LIGHT. CENTRE. RIGHT-HAND LIGHT. Dove. Matthew. The Saviour. Jacob. Eliud. Virgin and Chilli. Eleazar. Zerobabel. Abia. Sadoc. Ezekias. Rehoboam. Josias. Osias. Solomon. Jotham. Assa. David. Jehosaphat. Jesse. The cost of this window was £330.

Besides these, there is a cinquefoil window above the triple lancet at the east end of the south aisle, presented by Thomas Salt, Esq. It contains the dove in the centre, surrounded by ornamental mosai<;s: this was the work of the late Mr. Ward, as was also a large single lancet in the west side of the south transep~, which consists of quarries, and four large medallions of stained glass.

K 36 A SHORT ACCOUNT OF THE

More recently, the church has received an important addition in the memorial to Earl Talbot, the late revered lord lieutenant of the county. A subscription for this object was entered into soon after his lordship's death, which amounted to nearly 800l. The memorial consists of the fine stained glass in the west window, the work of the well-known M. Gereute, of Paris. It contains four lights, subdivided into sixteen compartments, the subjects in which record some of the principal miracles of our Lord, and are arranged as follows :- FOURTH LIGHT. FIRST LIGHT. SECOND LIGHT. THIRD LIGHT. St. John, xxi. 6. St. Mark, viii. 23. St. John, v. 8. St. Luke, vii. 3. The Second Miraculous Draught Restoring the Blind Man to Healing the Impotent Man by Healing the Centurion's of Fishes. Sight. the Pool of Bethesda. Servant. St. John, ix. 6. St. Luke, xvii. 12. St. John, xi. 43. St. John, vi. 11. The Man that was born blind Healing the Ten Lepers. Raising Lazarus from the Dead. Feeding the Five Thousand. restored to Sight.

St. Luke, v. 6. St. Mark, ix. 25. St. Matthew, ix. 6. St. Matthew, ix. 25. The Miraculous Draught of Casting out the Deaf and Healing the Sick of the Raising up J airus' Daughter. Fishes. Dumb Spirit. Palsy. St. Mark, vii. 33, 34. St. Matthew, viii. 14, 15. St. John, xi. 7. Healing the Man that was Deaf, St. Luke, vii. 14. Healing St. Peter's Wife's The Marriage in Cana of and had an Impediment in Raising the Widow's Son. Galilee. his Speech. Mother.

The ten clerestory windows of the nave are also filled with quarries and occasional medallions, representing angels with musical instruments and other appropriate devices, each light bearing on a scroll a part of the Te Deurn. The centre windows on each side contain the family arms of the late Earl Talbot, surmounted by the crest, and at the sides the Star of the Order of the Garter and his lordship's initials, with the motto of the family, "Humani nihil alienum." These are the work of Mr. W ailes, of Newcastle. On the spandrils of the arches of the nave is some ornamental painting, in a dark red-brown, containing on labels the 122nd Psalm; and at the west end, over the window, are two angels holding a scroll, containing the words, "Glory to God in the highest." On a brass, placed at the left side of the west door, is the following inscription, from the pen of the Earl of Harrowby :- " The west window and the clerestory windows of this church have been renewed and restored by the " friends and neighbours of Charles Chetwynd, second Earl Talbot, K.G., in token of affectionate esteem and " grateful recollections. " Having represented his Sovereign with honour as Viceroy of Ireland, and exercising to the last the "functions of Lord Lieutenant of his native county, he devoted the peaceful evening of his days to the " welfare of high and low around him without distinction. " This church, its services and its honour, he held in special affection, and it has been deemed that no "more fitting tribute to his memory could be chosen, than the completion of a work in which, living, " he so much delighted. " Lord, I have loved the habitation of thy house, and the place where thine honour dwelleth."

[Over the Brass Plate.] "For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth."

[Opposite the Brass Plate.]

"But as for me, I will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy, and in thy fear will I "worship towards thy holy temple." [Over the above.] " Thy dead men shall live : together with my body shall they rise." WINDOWS, MONUMENTS, ETC. 37

" The most conspicuous among the monuments, and, indeed, the only altar tomb, is that in honour of " Sir Edward Aston and his lady Joan, whose figures are represented in alabaster. Sir Edward was the " person who constructed the curious mansion of Tixal. This gentleman is said to have been a distinguished " knight in the reign of Henry VIII. He died in 1567. " Over this tomb appears the following inscription, embossed in old English or uncial letters. The " letters were originally gilt, but the gilding is now almost effaced:-

"Hic Joanna jacet domina Aston, qure pia quondam, " Edwardi Astoni militis uxor exat "Filia sic et erat Thome Ndlly's domus unde " Prodiit est Yenho, miles et ipse fuit " IlIa quidem villre de Tyxall redincandre " Auxiliatrices prrebuit usq. manus " Hei matcona potens, probis fecunda benigna " Prudens atq. sciens. ingeniosa fuit. " Si mundas index. perat livor quoq. dicam " Nestereos annos vivere digna fuit, " Deinde diis venit, fatalis qure manet omnis " Debita naturre solvere qureq. jubet " Septembris die viceno, hei perit illa " Atq. secundo, ut aiunt, mors tua vis nimia est. " Immo non periit sed Olympica regna petiuit. " Qure pater alterius prreparat ipse suis, " Non mors est, quam nos fetgimus '*' '*' '*' mortem vocam " Sed vero vita est, vivimus atq. deo. " Anno milleno quingentene quoque his sex " Fac quingennia des, et duo deficiunt.

" Against one of the pillars in the chancel stands a very handsome antique monument, which appears " from the inscription to have been erected to the memory of lady Barbara Crompton, 'Heire of Richard " , Hudson, Doctor of Lawe, and late wife of Sir Thomas Crompton, Judge of the High Court of Admiralty of " , England, Advocate for Queen Elizabeth, and Kinge Jas. of piouse memory: Vicar Generall to the Arch- " 'bishopp of Canterbury, and Chancellor to the Bishopp of London. Whose body lyeth interred in the " , P'sh church of St. Gregory, by St. Paules, London. She lived his Widdow three-and-thirty yeeres, and " , departed this life fourth day of March, 1641, aged 72.' Below this part of the inscription appears a " recital of the names of her children, and the different families into which they were married, but we omit " it as too long for insertion here. Besides these, there are a variety of other monuments in this church; " but neither they, nor the numerous gravestones which form the pavement of the chancel, merit particular " description."-The Beauties of England and Wales, vol. xiii.-STAFFoRDsHIRE.

The Following are the Principal Dimensions of St. Mary's Church, Stafford. Feet. Length from East to West 178 Length of Transept from North to South 104 Length of Chancel 70 Breadth of Nave and Aisles 66 Height of Nave 50 Height of Chancel 55 Height of Tower ... 93 All External Measurements. AN

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE SUBSCRIBERS

TO THE

~tSJtotatton of tbt

OF THE CHURCH OF ST. MARY AT STAFFORD,

To meet £5000 qifered by Jesse Watts Russell, Esq., for the Restoration and Rrfitting qf the Interior.

Adams, Messrs., Stafford. Booth, Mr., Stafford. Adderley, C. B., Esq., M.P., Hams Hall, Coleshill. Bott, John, Esq., Colton Hall. Addison, Samuel, Esq., Wednesbury. Boulton, J oseph, Esq., Holly Cottage, near Stafford. Aley, Mr., Stafford. Boulton, Thomas, Esq., Forbridge Villa, near Stafford. Alstone, Lady, London. Bourne, John, Esq., Hilderstone Hall. Anlezark, the Rev. Robert, Castle Church. Bowstead, J oseph, Esq., London. Anonymous, per the Rev. M. W. Russell. Boyden, Mr., Stafford. Ditto. Bradford, Right Hon. the Earl of, Weston-under-Lizard. Ditto. Brewster, Mr. George, Stafford. Ditto. Broadhurst, Mr. R., ditto. Ditto. Browne, J., Esq., Leigh Castle, near Kidderminster. Ditto. Browne, T. D., Esq., Coventry. Brown, Mrs., Forebridge. Baker, the Rev. R. B., Hilderstone. Brutton, Thomas, Esq., H. M. Castle, Stafford. Baring, the Hon. W. B., London. Brutton, Mrs., ditto. Barlow, Mrs., Stafford. Buchanan, Rev. A. H., Hales, Market Drayton. Barton, Mr., ditto. Buller, Edward, Esq., Dilhorne. Bateman, John, Esq., Knypersley Hall, Congleton. Bullock, Mrs. Abraham, Stafford. Batkin, Mr., Stafford. Burne, Miss, Edgmond, Newport. Beech, Mr. Samuel, ditto. utt, Rev. Mr., Trentham. Bell, Henry, Esq., ditto. Buxton, Mr., Stafford. Bellamy, John, Clerk of Assize. Bellasis, Mr. SeIjeant, Northwood House, St. John's Wood, Calthrop, Rev. Henry (Bishop's Chaplain). London. Campbell, Miss Harriet, Rowley. Bill, John, Esq., Farley. Cartwright, Thomas, Esq. (High Sheriff), Hill HalL Birch, Miss, Leamington. Cartwright, Mr., Stafford. Birchall, Miss, Stafford. Cartwright, Mr. Daniel, ditto. Bishop, Mr. John, ditto. Cartwright, Miss, ditto. Bolton, F. S., Esq., now Incumbent of Salt. Chetwynd, Lady, Longdon, Lichfield. Bond, Edward, Esq., Lichfield. Children of the Sunday School, Stafford. L 40 LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS.

Clarke, Edward, Esq., Rlckerscote. Garratt, Miss, Stafford. Clewlow, Mr., Stafford. Gaunt, Matthew, Esq., Leek. Cliff, Mr. Thomas, ditto. Gisborne, Rev. Thomas, Y oxall Lodge. Coldwell, Rev. W. E., Rector of St. Mary's. Godson, Richard, Esq., London. Collection by Mr. Parke, Wolverhampton. Gough, Hon. F., Perry Bar Hall. Constable, Sir Clifford, Burton Constable, York. Gough, John, Esq., Perry Bar. COME', Miss, Stafford. Griffin, Mr. John (Churchwarden), Stafford. Uopeland, W. T., Esq., Stoke-up on-Trent. Griffin, Mrs. John, ditto. Copeland & Garrett, Messrs., ditto. Griffin, Master, ditto. Corne, Mrs., Ireland. Griffin, Master G. F., ditto. CroRbie, Mr., Stafford. Grosvenor, Mrs., ditto. Crowther, John, Esq., Wednesbury. Grove, Edward, Esq., Shenstone, Lichfield. Cramp, Mr., Stafford. Curzon, the Hon. R., Hagley, Rugeley. Haddersich, William, Esq., Rickerscote. Haddersich, Mrs., ditto. Dale, Mr. Philip, Stafford. Hall, J. K., Esq., Holly Bush, Burton-on-Trent. Dalton, Rev. W., Wolverhampton. Hall, John, Esq., ditto. Dartmouth, Right Hon. the Earl of, Sandwell Hall, Bir- Hand, R. W., Esq., Rowley. mingham. Harland, Dr., Forebridge. Davenport, John, Jun., Esq., Westwood, Hull, Leek. Harland, Rev. Edward, Sandon. Dawson, Mr., Stafford. Harrowby, the Right Hon. the Earl of, Sandon Hall. Dawson, Mr. Edward, ditto. Hart, William, Esq., Stafford. Dickenson, Mrs., ditto. Hartshorne, Thomas, Esq., Silkmore, Stafford. Dickenson, Mr. J ames, ditto. Hay, Mr. G. E., Wolverhampton. Douglass, Mr., Forebridge. Hewlett, Mrs., Stafford. Drakeford, D., Esq., London. Hiern, J. G., Esq., ditto. Dudley, Mr. Charles, Stafford. Hodgson, Major-General. Educated at the Free Grammar School fifty years ago; nephew of the late Bishop Porteus. Edwardes, Rev. E. J., Trentham, Newcastle. Hodson, the Ven. Archdeacon. Edwards, Miss, Stafford. Hope, A. B., Esq., London. Edwards, Mr., ditto. Hope, Lady Mildred, ditto. Edwards & Co., ditto. Howard, the Hon. Greville, Tamworth. Elley, William, Esq., Stone. Howe, the Earl, Gopsall, Atherstone. Elley, Thomas Benson, Esq., Stafford. Hughes, the Misses, Stafford. Evans, W., Esq., Ellaston, Derbyshire. Hughes, Richard, Esq., ditto. Rughes, Robert, Esq., ditto. Farrand, Robert, Esq., London. Fell, William, Esq., Lichfield. Ingestre, the Viscount, Brompton Park, Middlesex. Fenton, Mr., Stafford. Ingram, H. C. Meynell, Esq., Roar Cross, Lichfield. Ferneyhough, Captain, Windsor. Insley, William, Esq., Stafford. Ferrers, Earl, Chartley Castle. Figgins, Mrs., Stafford. J ones, William, Esq., Stafford. Flint, Charles, Esq., ditto. J ones, Mr. John, Shelton. Foster, C. S., Esq., Walsall. Foster, Charles, Jun., Esq., ditto. Keeling, Mr. Benjamin, Stafford. Fowke, Mr. (Churchwarden), Stafford. Keeling, Mrs., ditto. Fowke, Robert, Esq., Stafford. Keen, George, Esq., Rowley. Friend, A., by William Locker, Esq. Keen, Miss, ditto. Friend, A., by Rev. E. Whieldon. Keen, Mr. Archibald, ditto. Friend, A. Kemsey, Rev. Matthew, Brewood. Friend, A. Kenderdine, Lieut., R.N., Stafford. Friend, A. Kenderdine, Mr. Charles, ditto. Kenderdine, Mrs. Charles, ditto. Gardner, Captain, Stafford. Kenderdine, Mrs., ditto. Garratt, John, Esq., ditto. Kenderdine, Mr. John, ditto. LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS. 41

Kennedy, Mrs., Stafford. Painter, Mr., Dean's Hill. Knight, Dr., ditto. Panting, Rev. L., Chebsey. Knight & Son, ditto. Parker, T. H., Esq., Park Hall. Parker, William, Esq., Lysways Hall. Lakin, Mrs., Stafford. Peake, Samuel, Esq., Lamberscote, Stafford. Lane, Rev. J. L., W asperton, Warwick. Pearson, Mr., Stafford. Laugharne, Mrs., Stafford. Pearson, Mr. J osiah, ditto. Lawley, Sir F., Middleton Park, Fazeley. Petit, Rev. J. L., Shiffnal. Lea, Mr. Thomas, Stafford. Petit, L. H., Esq., Lincoln's Inn. Leek, Ann, Stafford. Piercy, J. E., Esq. (High Sheriff), Warley Hall. Leigh, Rev. Clement, Newcastle, S. Pigott, Rev. J. 0., London. Leigh, John, Esq., Tettenhall, Wolverhampton. Pinfold, Rev. Dr., Bramshall. Leigh, William, Esq., Little Aston, Lichfield. Plant, Mr., Stafford. Levett, Rev. Richard, Milford Hall. Lichfield, the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of, Eccleshall Queen, Her Majesty the late Dowager. Castle. Lichfield, the Hon. and very Rev. the Dean of~ Lichfield. Riley, Mr., Stafford. Limebeer, Miss, Stafford. Rogers, John, Esq., ditto. Lithgoe, Mr., ditto. Royds, Rev. C. S., Haughton. Lloyd, Edward, Esq., ditto. Russell, J. D. Watts, Esq., Ham Hall, Ashbourne. Locker, Mrs., Tillington, Stafford. Ryder, Honourable G. D., Westbrook, Hemel Hempstead. Locker, William, Esq., ditto. Ryder, Honourable Mrs., Hambledon, Henley-on-Thames. Lowe, Mr., Stafford. Ryder, W. D., Esq., Oxford Circuit. Loxdale, J ames, Esq., Bilston. Ludlow, Mr. Serjeant, London. Salt, J. S., Esq., 9, Russell-square, London. Salt, Mrs., ditto. Manley, J. S., Esq,. Thickbroom, Lichfield. Salt, Thomas, Esq., Weeping Cross. Marsh, John, Esq., Stafford. Salt, George, Esq., 9, Russell-square. Marson, Mr. John, ditto. Salt, Rev. J oseph, Standon, Eccleshall. Martin, Mrs., ditto. Salt, John, Esq., 9, Russell-square, London. Masfen, John, Esq., ditto. Salt, William, Esq., ditto. Maude, Rev. Joseph (Late Assistant Minister of St Mary's), Salt, Miss, ditto. Carisbrooke, Isle of Wight. Salt, Miss K, ditto. M'Mahon, J ames, Esq., London. Salt, Miss Emma, ditto. Meeson, Mr. Charles, Stafford. Salt, Miss Harriet, ditto. Meeson, Mr. John, ditto. Samaritan Club, Stafford. ldonckton, Edward, Esq., Somerford. Sandars, J oseph, Esq., J ohnstone Hall, Eccleshall Monckton, George, Esq., ditto. Sand on, the Viscount, Sandon Hall. Moore, William, Esq., Shirleywich. Scott, Sir E. D., Perry Bar. Moore, Mrs. J ane, Stafford. Seckerson, Mrs. Ellen, Castle House. Moreton, Mr., ditto. Seckerson, Rev. E. B., High Offiey. Morgan, Mr. Arthur, ditto. Sedgley, M. WaIter, Chebsey. Morgan, Mr. Charles Edward, ditto. Shaw, Captain, R. N., Windermere, Cumberland. Morris, Mrs., ditto. Sidney, Thomas, Esq., M.P., London. Mort, C. C., Esq, ditto. Sidney, George, Esq., Yarlet Hill. Mosley, Sir Oswald, Rollaston Hall, Burton. Smith, G. T., Esq. Sneyd, Ralph, Esq., (High Sheriff). Norman, Edward, Esq., Manningtree, Essex. Sneyd, Mrs., Blackheath. Sneyd, Miss, ditto. Odd Fellows' Lodge, M. U., Stafford. Southern, Mr., Stafford. Oldham, J. 0., Esq., Bellamour Hall, Rugeley. Sparrow, Miss, Bishton. Owen, Mr. Edward, Lynn. Spilsbury, George, Esq., Stafford. Owen, Mr. John. Stubbs, F., Esq., London. Owen, Mr. Henry, Sandon. St. George, Lieut. John, R.A., W oodside, Liverpool. 42 LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS.

St. Vincent, Lord, Lodge of Odd Fellows. Weaver, T. D., Esq., Stafford. Sutherland, His Grace the Duke of, Trentham Hall. Webb, Mrs., the H;ough. Webb, George, Esq., Billington, Stafford. Talbot, the Right Hon. the Earl of, Ingestre Hall. Webb, Mrs. George, ditto. Talbot, the Hon. and Rev. A. c., Church Eaton. Webb, C. H., Esq., Stafford. Talbot, Hon. J . c., London. Webb, Rev. William, Tixall. Talbot, Hon. Mrs. J. C., ditto. Webb, Miss Charlotte, Stafford. Talbot, Hon. Gilbert C., Ingestre. Webb, Mr. J ames, ditto. Talbot, Mr., Stafford. Webb, Mrs. J ames, ditto. Talfourd, Mr. SeIjeant, London. Webb, J. H., Esq., the Hough. Tanner, Mr., Stafford. Webb, Thomas, Esq., Forebridge. Taylor, Rev. W., Forebridge. Whateley, William, Esq., Q.C., London. Temple, Rev. Robert P., Curate of St. Mary's. Whieldon, Rev. Edward, Hales Hall, Cheadle. Thomas, Rev. Vaughan, Oxford. Whieldon, Thomas, Esq., ditto. Thorneycroft, Edward, Esq., Wolverhampton. Whitby, Rev. Edward, Creswell Hall, near Stafford. Tildesley, Mr., Stafford. Widow's Mite, Stafford. Till, Mr. Thomas, Stafford. Wilder, Mr., ditto. Timmis, Miss Frances, ditto. Wilkes, Mrs., ditto. Tomkinson, the Misses, ditto. Wilkes, Mr., Asylum, ditto. Tomlinson, Rev. J. W., Rector of Stoke-upon-Trent. Williams, Mr., ditto. Tomlinson, Mrs., Stoke. Williamson, H. H., Esq., Greenway Bank, Newcastle. Tomlinson, Mr., Stafford. Wise, Ayshford, Esq., Clayton Hall. Trubshaw, Thomas, Esq., Great Haywood. W ogan, William, Esq., Stafford. Turner, Mr., Stafford. Wood, Mrs., Haling Grove, Penkridge. Turner, Mrs., ditto. W ood, John, Esq., Ankerton. Turner, Mr. Thomas, ditto. W orsey, Mrs., Stafford. Turnock, Mr., ditto. W right, Mr. Charles, ditto. Turnock, Mr. James, ditto. Wright and Bentley, Messrs., ditto. Twemlow, Thomas, Esq., Peat's Wood, Market Dray ton. Wyatt, Harvey, Esq., Acton Hill, near Stafford. Tyrer, Jas., Esq., Tixall Hall. Wyatt, Edwanl, Esq., Lichfield. Tyrer, Mrs., ditto. W yatt, Mrs. Edward, ditto.

Union Friendly Society, Stafford. Yates, Mrs., Stafford. Yates, Mr. Richard, Great Haywood. Waddell, Cornelius, Esq., Stafford. Y onge, Mrs. Fanny, Walton, Stone. Ward, Mr., Stafford.

SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE RESTORATION. £ s. d. Donation from Jesse Watts Russell, Esq. 5000 0 0 First Appeal 3358 18 6 Second Appeal 1214 8 6 Third Appeal 542 8 0 Subscriptions to Church-yard 334 6 0 Collection at Opening ... 472 16 8 Collection at Offertory, 16 March, 1851 77 10 7 ~ Contents of Alms' Chest 20 10 10 Building Fund 500 0 0 Commissioners' Receipts, Return of Duty 283 2 11 Premiums and Interest on Exchequer Bills 822 4 7 Old Materials 2 11 4 Subscriptions since Opening 332 0 0 Still due to the Bankers 153 8 6 ------£13,114 6 5